>> 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.
>
> It's interesting you say that, Werner, because I think grohtml is
> broken by design, for the simple reason that HTML in no way
> resembles a printer.
Today, the tty output device isn't a printer either...
> Because troff affords the user finer control -- dot-addressable
> control -- over the (intended) output, any conversion to HTML is
> subject to gross loss of fidelity. Aren't the advantages of ditroff
> completely lost?
The idea is that macro packages like ms contain some helper macros to
guide grohtml so that (most of) the high-level structure remains
intact. On the other hand, grohtml sees the output of all groff
macros, including the preprocessors. Where necessary, images are
created.
Werner
