On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 09:59:43PM -0500, Peter Schaffter wrote: > Mike Bianchi summed up the backward compatibility concern best: > : > "So no, do not break groff by 'modernizing' it."
Just to be clear, my opinion is that the _vast_ majority of changes from legacy *roff to groff have been modernizing that preserved backward compatibility, and that is important when documents are viewed as living things that mature and evolve. I cheered when the two-letter limit on names was abolished! Very few things broke and the source-code of my documents where now much easier to understand. I even retrofitted some old ones as they changed. The thing I fear is when .glurp arg1 arg2 changes to .glurp arg2 arg1 , etc. (I cringe when I watch other languages, Ruby comes to mind, make this mistake. Code, written to the spec, that used to work now doesn't?!) As to "good typography", what I value most is that the document still reads _correctly_ and looks OK. I seldom care about how the text layout changes from version to version. (Although I do sometimes obsess over a widow or orphan, or table layout.) > I was really surprised by Mike's comment: > "Done right, a really great macro package would have to clearly > separated parts: presentation and format. ..." I apologize Peter. I have not considered mom in a _long_ time. I'm too comfortable in my mm macro world, but I'm finding mm a bit rickety for new things I want to do. It is time I looked at mom again. Thank you for the long post. -- Mike Bianchi Foveal Systems 973 822-2085 mbian...@foveal.com http://www.AutoAuditorium.com http://www.FovealMounts.com
