> Dave Kemper <saint.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2/22/24, G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I've come to think that a set of "best practice" for *roff document >> composition is to: >> >> A. Load your desired full-service macro package (if any) on the command >> line with `-m`. >> B. Load any auxiliary macro packages that your document _requires_ >> either on the command line with `-m` or at the very beginning of >> your document with `mso`. > > Point A is a widespread historical expectation (at least partly > because, far enough back in history, troff didn't have .mso), but I > don't think it should be generally considered best practice. > Command-line options ought to be what the name says: *options*. Want > a different paper size or font family? Sure, those are options. > > But in no sense is loading m.tmac optional for -mm documents. It is > absolutely required, so ideally it should not be incumbent on every > user who wants to render that document to know which switches to flip > to get it to work right, but on the document author to include this > within the document.
This is a very good point, and one I should have thought of when I read Brandon’s original post last night. The differences between -man, -ms, and -mm are loosely analogous to the XML world’s XHTML, Docbook, and DITA[1]. Nobody with the most minimal understanding of either triplet are going to expect a single package/transform to handle all three. But in the case of groff, there’s at least twice as many years of inertia (compared to XML) to consider. It really does make sense that an -mm based book file should invoke the macro package(s) it needs, but so many of us are automatically going to put that -mm on the command line (a/k/a “widespread historical expectation”). At least the major packages do look to see if they’ve already been invoked before running through the whole shebang again. In the case of those of us who have specialized[2] -ms, it would make even more sense to use .mso instead of the command line “option.” Our modified package could source s.tmac at the outset. Now manpages… I seriously doubt we can do much about them. — Larry [1] If you want to quibble about the analogy, I’ll likely agree with you. [2] DITA supports “specialization,” the defining of new elements to suit a particular in-house need. Whether groff or XML, the cost is in portability.
