Groff documentation: short TOC numbering, and HTML #anchor tag bookmarkability

I. It seems a little inconsistent that the Groff documentation's short TOC does not include the chapter numbers present in the long TOC. II. Also, one general issue, not just with the short TOC but in several places throughout the

Re: Another issue in Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings - phrasing

At 2024-03-08T04:07:25+, ropers wrote: > Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings > > contains this paragraph: > > > Because a Euro glyph was not historically defined in PostScript > > fonts, groff comes with a fon

Re: Groff UTF-8 support? - Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings

Fair warning--I have critiques of several of the suggestions below. At 2024-03-08T01:14:57+, ropers wrote: > On 07/03/2024, Dave Kemper wrote: > > On 3/7/24, ropers wrote: > >> "latin1" sounds awfully ISO-8859-1ish, and (I fear) not very much like > >> the Latin-1 Supplement Unicode block > >

Another issue in Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings - phrasing

Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings contains this paragraph: > Because a Euro glyph was not historically defined in PostScript fonts, > groff comes with a font called freeeuro.pfa that provides the Euro in > sever

Re: Groff manual subsection 4.6.5.7 Indented regions: Example is inconsistent w/ output provided

[looping in groff list] Hi Ian, Probably better to send this sort of comment to the mailing list so that others can share their insights and perspectives. At 2024-03-08T01:46:12+, ropers wrote: > PS: Re. .EX/.EE, I've only just noticed on the list that you've been > discussing this with T.E.

more Groff documentation navigation fixes

I think I forgot to send the below, unless I'm totally confused. Not diffs this time, because I drafted these earlier: In groff.texi, line 4059 appears to omit the "Next" entry. It currently says: @node ms Footnotes, , ms Insertions, ms Body Text I suspect the correct form might be: @node ms Foo

Re: Groff UTF-8 support? - Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings

On 07/03/2024, Dave Kemper wrote: > Hi Ian, thanks for your attention to the groff manual! Thank you very much, Dave, for your helpful and informative replies. :-) > On 3/7/24, ropers wrote: >> "latin1" sounds awfully ISO-8859-1ish, and (I fear) not very much like >> the Latin-1 Supplement Unic

Re: Groff UTF-8 support? - Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings

Hi Ian, thanks for your attention to the groff manual! On 3/7/24, ropers wrote: > "latin1" sounds awfully ISO-8859-1ish, and (I fear) not very much like > the Latin-1 Supplement Unicode block Correct. Since there are two different things that include "Latin-1" in their name, perhaps this wordin

Groff UTF-8 support? - Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings

Hello there! Section 5.1.9 Input Encodings of the groff(1) documentation currently says: > Input to the GNU troff formatter itself, on the other hand, > must be in one of two encodings it can recognize. > > cp1047 > The code page 1047 input encoding works only on EBCDIC platforms > (and c

Re: [PATCH] doc/groff.texi.in: Define the centimeter.

Hi Lennart, At 2024-03-07T15:35:00+, Lennart Jablonka wrote: > I think it’s more fun this way. I'm skeptical. > -Centimeter; a centimeter is about 0.3937@tie{}inches. > +Centimeter; the distance light travels in vacuum when given the > +2,997,924.58th part of a second. ...in a non-accelerat

[PATCH] doc/groff.texi.in: Define the centimeter.

I think it’s more fun this way. --- doc/groff.texi.in | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/groff.texi.in b/doc/groff.texi.in index dda99b83a..56fdce530 100644 --- a/doc/groff.texi.in +++ b/doc/groff.texi.in @@ -6015,7 +6015,8 @@ Inch; defined as 2.54@tie{}centi