> Should we talk about newer groff macro packages like -mom?
> What about utilities and preprocessors?
Absolutely.
I imagine this turning into a collaboration of many authors and editors,
with most concentrating on just the chapters where their expertise is greatest.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:55:57AM -0400, Larry Kollar wrote:
> To be honest, I can’t believe over a fourth of my life has gone by since we
> started the
> transcription.
>
> Now, with sources where everyone can grab them, maybe we should talk about
> what we
> want to do for UTP Revisited. These are just off the top of my head:
>
> - Update Chapter 3 to cover Vim (including gvim)
> - Update Chapter 4 to cover groff (and Heirloom and Neatroff, listing the
> most significant
> differences)*
> - Update Chapter 5 (-ms) and Chapter 6 (-mm) with groff extensions.
> - New chapter: Ways to work with other file formats, with the goal of
> getting content into
> [gt]roff. Cover conversion utilities such as pandoc and lowdown. I’ll take
> this one at least
> to first draft… maybe I’ll throw in a plug for Tines as a groff-friendly
> outliner, LOL.
> - Where DWB is mentioned, point out that some utilities (like pic) are part
> of the standard
> distributions now, and mention replacements for other DWB utilities. (Or
> has DWB been
> liberated?)
>
> Should we talk about newer groff macro packages like -mom? What about
> utilities and
> preprocessors? I think preconv is a must, do we want to at least mention grap
> or groffer?
>
> Do we want to cover lighter editors, such as pico, nano, or joe?
>
> What about “upstart" scripting languages such as Perl or Python?
>
> OK, that’s all I have, and I’m up way past bedtime. Does anyone else have
> ideas about
> what should be in an updated UTP?
>
> — Larry
>
> -------
> *This implies updating the macros to work with non-groff formatters, and that
> implication
> is deliberate on my part.
--
Mike Bianchi
Foveal Systems
973 822-2085
[email protected]
http://www.AutoAuditorium.com
http://www.FovealMounts.com
