> As a troff user, my preference would actually be to have a
> collection of XSLT stylesheets, one for each of the supported XML
> input languages, and to have a common troff macro set to which all
> of these are transformed.
This sounds good.
> For doing anything which is not representable in the input
> language, one could use <?troff .xx?>.
Yep.
> For some uses, the generated troff code could also be edited
> directly instead of the source document. This is what I already do
> with my OpenDocument-to-troff converter - no sane person would want
> to edit OpenDocument manually in order to create a book.
Hmm. Here I disagree. Working on intermediate files is not fun.
Instead, I strongly prefer the tagging within the source code as
described above.
On the other side I must admit that I have never done this, so I speak
from a theoretical point of view. Maybe it's not possible to foresee
what the converter exactly does (which I hope not), and tagging of the
intermediate file is really necessary. However, this should be
reduced to the absolute minimum.
Werner
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
