>> > groff to XML to HTML via doclifter produces better HTML than any of
>> > the direct groff -> HTML tools.
>>
>> Sadly, this is true. grohtml would need a big hug with much love to
>> grow up, but currently nobody really takes care of it.
>
> The problem is fundamental - a good conversion needs structural
> analysis as good as doclifter's, which is *hard*.
Yes. However, grohtml would be able to do different things, in a
different way, and with proper markup the results could be excellent
also. Sigh.
Werner
