"Michael Kerpan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...that groff/troff seems to be written off by so many as "obsolete"
> and "only useful for man pages", despite the fact that it can do
> everything that TeX/LaTeX (seemingly the favored non-WYSIWYG document
> processor) can do
First, it cannot. TeX p
If *roff is only good for manpages, why was I able to create
master artwork for creating printed circuit cards, including
circuit path lines on both sides of the board as well as a
pad master for drilling holes through the card and a solder-resist
mask? :-)
Most folks think you need a CAD system
On 2007-12-14 12:25 -0500, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> ...that groff/troff seems to be written off by so many as "obsolete"
> and "only useful for man pages", despite the fact that it can do
> everything that TeX/LaTeX (seemingly the favored non-WYSIWYG document
> processor) can do but while taking up
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007, Robert Thorsby wrote:
> On 15/12/07 04:25:40, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> > ...that groff/troff seems to be written
> > off by so many as "obsolete" ...
>
> IMO it is all a matter of perceptions. People think that a 30 year
> old application that, even today, does not have a GUI
On Dec 16, 2007 5:56 PM, Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > at least, groff/troff without CTAN like things and the proper
> > ability to handle CJK characters through latex-cjk or xetex methods
> > in latex.
>
> Hehe. It was me who has written the CJK package for LaTeX :-)
>
>
> Admiri
> at least, groff/troff without CTAN like things and the proper
> ability to handle CJK characters through latex-cjk or xetex methods
> in latex.
Hehe. It was me who has written the CJK package for LaTeX :-)
Werner
