> The worst case, if a viewer didn't implement the percent extension,
> is that we'd get lumpy tables as we do now.
No. The worst case is a viewer which uses an older groff version
without support for the percent extension -- the table completely
disappears:
.TH
xxx
.TS
y y.
foo bar
.TE
yyy
-> tbl:aaa:6: unrecognised format `y'
tbl:aaa:6: giving up on this table
I doubt whether this is an acceptable solution.
> But I'm not really worried about this, [...]
I am!
> But what Michael is really asking for is for gtbl to handle T{ T}
> blocks better even *without* some new feature. Which, I think, is
> an eminently reasonable request and where we ought to be focusing
> our energies.
Indeed. The best so far is Gunnar's solution to emulate your
suggested percent keyletter extension. It's OK for me to use that for
table-like data which would need more a single column with T{ T} --
something which I've actually never seen in a man page, but you have a
much larger sample base to check. However, for simple list-like
structures consisting of a label and an explanation I still think that
TP/TQ is the way to go; and for man pages within groff I actually ask
you to use it.
Werner
