Hi James, James K. Lowden wrote on Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 11:29:37AM -0500: > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 05:40:58 +0100 Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> For PDF output, by all means, use groff, it is much, much better >> than mandoc for that. For mdoc to HTML, don't. > Ingo, my colleague says the man macros EX and EE aren't supported on > the version of FreeBSD he uses, which I assume is using some version of > mandoc. That depends on the version of FreeBSD, and whether he is using mandoc from base or ports. > Are they supported? They have been supported for more than six years now. Here is an extract from http://mandoc.bsd.lv/ChangeLog : 2012-06-02 20:16 schwarze Changed: man.7 (1.116), "Exp", lines: +14 -2 man.c (1.116), "Exp", lines: +2 -2 man.h (1.61), "Exp", lines: +3 -1 man_html.c (1.88), "Exp", lines: +4 -2 man_macro.c (1.72), "Exp", lines: +3 -1 man_term.c (1.129), "Exp", lines: +4 -2 man_validate.c (1.81), "Exp", lines: +3 -1 Minimal implementation of .EX and .EE for GNU compatibility. Do not use this, it is not portable and only defined in esr's man-ext. For example, sox(1) wants these macros. $ printf "initial text\n.EX\nexample\ntext\n.EE\nfinal text\n" | \ mandoc -Thtml [...] <div class="manual-text">initial text <pre> example text </pre> final text</div> > If so, I'll get the details. Sure, a proper bug report (see http://mandoc.bsd.lv/contact.html ) is useful if there is anything unexpected. Yours, Ingo
