Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-18 Thread Nate Bargmann
* On 2018 18 Apr 19:30 -0500, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Nate, > > Nate Bargmann wrote on Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 06:52:44PM -0500: > > > After reading a bit about mdoc, > > I'm sure here you mean mandoc(1), the program, not mdoc(7), the > markup language. Yes, indeed. > > > I was disappointed tha

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-18 Thread Ingo Schwarze
Hi Nate, Nate Bargmann wrote on Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 06:52:44PM -0500: > After reading a bit about mdoc, I'm sure here you mean mandoc(1), the program, not mdoc(7), the markup language. > I was disappointed that unlike "man" that I find on Slackware or > Debian, I had to add an uninstalled man

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-18 Thread Nate Bargmann
* On 2018 18 Apr 12:26 -0500, Larry Kollar wrote: > At work, we’re in the first stages of moving our writers over to a > DITA-based CMS. Well, you forced me to look up DITA. ;-) > Ingo’s mandoc solution is a good way to produce text/HTML output, and you > can use groff for PDF. The only thing I’

Re: [groff] groff as the basis for comprehensive documentation?

2018-04-18 Thread Larry Kollar
Nate Bargmann wrote: > I have long been involved with a project that has lacked good > documentation for nearly all of its existence. We've had documentation, > but it isn't in a good format for generating man, HTML, or PDF versions. > > Long ago I started with Docbook and then that got to a po