Sounds like the author needs training in usability.
Sections can be emphasized without headings markup.
I've been writing professionally for 30 years, and
it amazes me what some "writers" who claim to be pro's
actually produce. :-(
Does she understand what her readers are looking for?
In other
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 12:05:27PM +0100, Keith Marshall wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Groff] Typesetting Software
>
> On Thursday 04 June 2009 01:36:10 Steve Izma wrote:
> > Pdflatex is just a tool for
> > going from latex source files to PDF output --a convenience tool,
> > like lilypond --pdf; I think
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 09:11:18PM -0400, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Groff] Typesetting Software
>
> FWIW, I write structured plain text files and pass them through sed
> to introduce groff or LaTex formatting. Aside from keeping the
> files clean/readable, it makes things easier when
Joerg van den Hoff wrote:
>>> groff is a single pass formatter, LaTeX is multi-pass.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean by this, but groff and TeX are
>> pretty much the same in this regard. Both are single-pass
>> formatters... both require multiple
>> invocations to enable forward references at all.
John¹ wrote:
> Many years ago, when type used to be set by hand, I was one of those who
> did the typesetting. I am now looking at the methodology of using either
> Groff or LaTex to produce print ready text. Can anyone briefly tell me if
> Groff does the same job as LaTex?
>
> Obviously there wi
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>
> Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> > > Formatting directives in LaTeX are much more verbose. If you really
> > > have to type all that stuff (instead of using editor shortcuts or
> > > what else) it gets in the way a bit.
> >
> > I don't think this is really
> Not sure what you're getting at here. Pdflatex is just a tool for
> going from latex source files to PDF output --a convenience tool,
> like lilypond --pdf; I think someone has crafted a shortform to
> accomplish this with groff as well, but given the filtering
> abilities of groff (with PS outp
On Jun 03 2009 (Wed, 23:53), Jan-Herbert Damm wrote:
> Hello,
>
> thank you everybody for this very interesting thread!!
>
> as someone who came to groff via it's makro-sets (mom in my case): may i ask
> for a short indication on how to accomplish this (or where to find it in TFM):
> > > last no
Steve Izma wrote:
> I also find it much safer to keep a copy of the output of a complex
> project (like a book) as well as the source code; macro package
> interaction with groff can change in subtle ways over the years and
> you can't count on reproducing a book in precisely the same way by
> re-
On Thursday 04 June 2009 01:36:10 Steve Izma wrote:
> Pdflatex is just a tool for
> going from latex source files to PDF output --a convenience tool,
> like lilypond --pdf; I think someone has crafted a shortform to
> accomplish this with groff as well,
I suspect you may be referring to my `pdfrof
> I meant: the functionality is in place. you call latex a few
> times on the same document and than you get the correctly
> formatted document. With groff this sure does not work
> this way.
Okay, I see what you mean. However, to be fair to groff as a
typesetting engine, this sort of functiona
Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> > Formatting directives in LaTeX are much more verbose. If you really
> > have to type all that stuff (instead of using editor shortcuts or
> > what else) it gets in the way a bit.
>
> I don't think this is really an issue. I find that when working on a
> document, only
On Jun 03 2009 (Wed, 20:57), Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
>
> One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet: creating
> nontrivial tables with tbl+roff is *much* easier than
> with LaTeX (in part thanks to tbl's "n" (numeric) format
> specifier).
>
>
> > groff is a single pass formatter, LaTeX is multi-pas
13 matches
Mail list logo
