Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Le vendredi 16 janvier 2015 à 14:11 -0500, Peter Schaffter a écrit : > Grégoire -- > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015, Grégoire Babey wrote: > > I wrote a second version for the introducion to groff in french. > > I splitted general presentation https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff and > > user tutorial https:/

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Grégoire -- On Thu, Jan 15, 2015, Grégoire Babey wrote: > I wrote a second version for the introducion to groff in french. > I splitted general presentation https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff and > user tutorial https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff_tuto The tutorial link gives "Cette page n'existe pas e

[Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hi groffies, thanks again for your feedbacks. I wrote a second version for the introducion to groff in french. I splitted general presentation https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff and user tutorial https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff_tuto Cheers Grégoire

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hi Peter, On Sun, Dec 14 2014 at 03:59:45 AM, Peter Schaffter wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: >> Last thing before I commit my example, should I add an entry in >> contrib/mom/ChangeLog? > > Yes, please. Also update examples/README.txt in a similar style to > the other en

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: > Last thing before I commit my example, should I add an entry in > contrib/mom/ChangeLog? Yes, please. Also update examples/README.txt in a similar style to the other entries. In French as well, if you don't mind. Thanks. -- Peter Schaffter htt

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Peter, On Sat, Dec 13 2014 at 05:59:11 PM, Peter Schaffter wrote: > Bertrand -- > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: [...] >> - However, if I use >> >> LC_ALL=C pdfmom -k >> >> (LC_ALL=C is passed during the build of all mom examples) letter.pdf >> is still correctly generated,

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Bertrand -- On Sat, Dec 13, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: > - Added my example mon_premier_doc.mom in contrib/mom/examples and > modified contrib/mom/Makefile.sub accordingly (attached my diff > against master). > > The result after building is: > > - In build/contrib/mom/examples, mon_premier

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hi Peter, Deri, On Thu, Dec 11 2014 at 01:14:58 AM, Peter Schaffter wrote: > The latest versions of the .mom files in examples/ should build > without this error. They do at my end, anyway. Update your > examples/ files, and let me know if the problem persists. Sorry my previous mail wasn't cl

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

On Thu 11 Dec 2014 00:43:18 Bertrand Garrigues wrote: > I was about to commit my example, however I ran into a problem. When I > generate the pdf with pdfmom -k, I have a few "can't translate character > code 233 to special character `'e' in transparent throughput" errors but > the output is fine.

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Bertrand -- On Thu, Dec 11, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: > I was about to commit my example, however I ran into a problem. When I > generate the pdf with pdfmom -k, I have a few "can't translate character > code 233 to special character `'e' in transparent throughput" errors but > the output i

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hi Peter, On Thu, Nov 20 2014 at 02:48:55 AM, Peter Schaffter wrote: > Bertrand -- > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: >> So I've written a very simple example with Mom in French with a >> step-by-step explanation on Ubuntu's French documentation page. >> Could I commit it into co

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Bertrand -- On Sun, Nov 30, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: > If I have a paragraph starting just after a HEADING, and I use the > defaut behaviour (no indentation of the first paragraph), is it the same > thing to add or omit .PP before this first paragraph just after a > HEADING? Isn't .PP usele

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hi Peter, On Thu, Nov 27 2014 at 05:51:54 AM, Peter Schaffter wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: [...] >> Also, I found out that in the mom examples, sometimes .PP is added >> right after a HEADING, sometimes no. What is the general rule? > > Not sure I understand. There's

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Bertrand -- On Thu, Nov 27, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: > Thanks for your remarks, I will correct my example and commit it. I > have a tendency to add a blank line before or after a HEADING for > clarity pupose in the source file, but this add an extra blank line. I > guess the recommandatio

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hi Peter, On Thu, Nov 20 2014 at 02:48:55 AM, Peter Schaffter wrote: > Bertrand -- > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: >> So I've written a very simple example with Mom in French with a >> step-by-step explanation on Ubuntu's French documentation page. >> Could I commit it into co

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Bertrand -- On Wed, Nov 19, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: > So I've written a very simple example with Mom in French with a > step-by-step explanation on Ubuntu's French documentation page. > Could I commit it into contrib/mom/examples so that I could refer > to this file in the Ubuntu article?

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

> So I've written a very simple example with Mom in French with a > step-by-step explanation on Ubuntu's French documentation page. > Could I commit it into contrib/mom/examples so that I could refer to > this file in the Ubuntu article? Certainly. Having more examples from different users is ce

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hello Werner, Peter, On Fri, Nov 07 2014 at 12:58:47 AM, Bertrand Garrigues wrote: [...] > On Fri, Oct 24 2014 at 01:13:27 AM, GregExp wrote: >> If you want, write it yourself (I suppose, you are french-speaking). >> Just click on "modifier" on the right, and you can write it down. > > Yes I a

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hi Gregoire, Sorry for my late answer I was quite busy these last days. On Fri, Oct 24 2014 at 01:13:27 AM, GregExp wrote: > Hi Bertrand, > > thank you for your answer. All two ideas are very good, and will make > the first paragraph more powerful. > > I am afraid, I would not found the right

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hi Ralph, thank you for your answer. I will choose one of the three commands with dpkg... And yes, thank you, with cat, you can look at an input-file directly in the terminal. Cheers Gregoire Le jeudi 23 octobre 2014 à 11:40 +0100, Ralph Corderoy a écrit : > Hi Gregoire, > > > This isn't

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hi Bertrand, thank you for your answer. All two ideas are very good, and will make the first paragraph more powerful. I am afraid, I would not found the right words for it, because I'm not a -mom user (not yet). If you want, write it yourself (I suppose, you are french-speaking). Just click on

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hi Gregoire, > This isn't the best way to verify package installation from the > command line. I recommend inserting a bit of code into your article > for checking whether groff is installed: > > dpkg -l | sed -n '/groff[^-]/p' To avoid scaring the chevaux, how about $ dpkg -l |

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hi Gregoire, Just read your introduction, good work! On Tue, Oct 21 2014 at 11:01:40 PM, Peter Schaffter wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014, GregExp wrote: >> I could take the chapter 3.1 (terminal)and 3.2 (éditeur de texte en >> console) after the chapter 3.3 (wich describe the "normal" using of >>

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Gregoire -- On Tue, Oct 21, 2014, GregExp wrote: > I could take the chapter 3.1 (terminal)and 3.2 (éditeur de texte en > console) after the chapter 3.3 (wich describe the "normal" using of > groff) of even at the very end, after chapter 7, as "special using of > groff". That's probably the best

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hallo Peter, thanks a lot for your feedback. I think I can understand everything of it and I will intege it to the french doc-page. It will take a few days... > Generally, I wouldn't spend so much space on piping text at > the command line through to groff (your poem, e.g.). It's a > lot to wa

Re: [Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Salut, Gregoire ! On Tue, Oct 21, 2014, GregExp wrote: > Hi groffies, > > I wrote a short introduction in french, hoping to allow people who are > non-geeks to start using groff. > > https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff > > I am thankful for any feedback. Good work. It's always a tough job summa

[Groff] Introduction to groff in french

Hi groffies, I wrote a short introduction in french, hoping to allow people who are non-geeks to start using groff. https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff I am thankful for any feedback. Gregoire Babey

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Robert -- On Wed, Sep 10, 2014, Robert Bocchino wrote: > As I mentioned to Werner, I'm a professional software engineer, > regular groff user, and Unix tool enthusiast, and I'd like to > contribute back to groff development. Welcome! -- Peter Schaffter http://www.schaffter.ca

[Groff] Introduction

Hi groff list, As I mentioned to Werner, I'm a professional software engineer, regular groff user, and Unix tool enthusiast, and I'd like to contribute back to groff development. I'm most interested in working on grohtml. I'd like to start with something simple, like a bug fix or a refactorin

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Monday 24 Oct 2005 21:40, you wrote: > Deri, > > Are the barcodes generated by troff? (A special font?) > > Or are they images that are generated, and then something like .PSPIC > glues them into the documents? I generate the bar code directly, using interleaved 2of5. (GPLed font here:-

Re: Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 09:26:51PM +0100, Deri James wrote: > : > Groff is used > in the final stage to actually typeset the report, including a barcode on > each page to control the "finishing" at the printers, ... Deri, Are the barcodes generated by troff? (A special font?) Or are the

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Thursday 20 Oct 2005 19:46, Larry Kollar wrote: > Is anyone collecting the "reasons for using groff" that have been > going by in this thread? Such a collection would be a fine beginning > to an advocacy/"Why Use groff" chapter in UTP (or a standalone web > page). I'd be particularly interested

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Robert Goulding wrote, quoting me: >> It isn't difficult to conceive a groff macro package, which, when used >> with `groff -Tascii -mroff2txi` for example, would spit out texinfo >> source... > > Why go to texinfo, rather than directly to info? Because, at the time I was looking for a mechanism f

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> Why go to texinfo, rather than directly to info? I think this is impossible without the help of additional programs. Werner ___ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> Indeed, before I embarked on the development of pdfmark.tmac, I did > create a rudimentary implementation, mimicking a subset of the ms > macros, which would do just that. As proof of concept, it worked, > but the eventual output from texinfo, formatted as either PDF or > HTML, was of such disap

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Oct 24, 2005, at 3:30 AM, Keith MARSHALL wrote: Werner Lemberg wrote, quoting Larry McVoy: And as the primary whiner on this topic, I'll volunteer to do the work to convert the existing texinfo docs to roff. This is a great offer, but I wonder whether it makes sense to use the time you ar

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Werner Lemberg wrote, quoting Larry McVoy: >> And as the primary whiner on this topic, I'll volunteer to do the >> work to convert the existing texinfo docs to roff. > > This is a great offer, but I wonder whether it makes sense to use > the time you are willing to invest in a better way. > > . I

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Werner LEMBERG wrote: Oh, this transition is, I think, a few years old :-) As mentioned in a just written mail, info is today quite user friendly even for the non-emacs people. Yes, it has been a while since I tried info, but didn't think it has been several years... my iBook (running OSX 10.

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> > If a texinfo document appears as a labyrinth, it is badly written, > > or rather, it has a bad structure. > > This is a reasonable, even definitive, statement. But I have the > feeling that texinfo encourages such bad structure. How do you get this impression? Of course, texinfo offers @sec

Re: [Groff] Introduction

What a lot of traffic there has been on this list lately! I've read all the messages in this thread that I have received, and this seems to be the best one to hang my reply on; but I've taken other thoughts into account. On Saturday, 22 October 2005 at 14:36:36 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: >>> Th

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> >> And it's not difficult to see hints of that in texinfo! > > > > What exactly do you mean? > > Basically the repertoire of keystrokes, which seem to resemble > EMACS ones; OK if you remember them, which I don't (apart from > SPACE and BS). However, to be fair, it does seem that 'info' has > b

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> And if you're not comfortable in emacs, you won't like info. [...] Apparently, you haven't tried info for a longer time. The used keys are now quite more familiar to other programs. Werner ___ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gn

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 03:05:34AM +0200, Bernd Warken wrote: > > Zvezdan Petkovic wrote: > > > > There's a good info viewer that is more like lynx than info. > > It's called pinfo, and I use it all the time for reading info pages. > > Another possibility is dwww. I have it on a Linux Debian sy

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Zvezdan Petkovic wrote: > > There's a good info viewer that is more like lynx than info. > It's called pinfo, and I use it all the time for reading info pages. Another possibility is dwww. I have it on a Linux Debian system, I do not know how it is called on other systems. With dwww you can v

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 02:40:10PM +0100, Ted Harding wrote: > Basically the repertoire of keystrokes, which seem to resemble > EMACS ones; OK if you remember them, which I don't (apart from > SPACE and BS). However, to be fair, it does seem that 'info' has > become more transparent over the last y

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Ted Harding wrote: This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult to write a texinfo file, and there are many benefits to do that. I would like to dissent (partially) from this. Me too. However, I have always regretted, even resented, GNU's transition from "man" to "info

Re: [Groff] Introduction

(Ted Harding) wrote: On 22-Oct-05 Werner LEMBERG wrote: . Documentation of GNU projects should be in texinfo format. Err, there are lots of so-called GNU projects that aren't documented in texinfo. This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult to write a texinfo file, an

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On 22-Oct-05 Werner LEMBERG wrote: >> > This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult >> > to write a texinfo file, and there are many benefits to do that. >> >> However, I have always regretted, even resented, GNU's transition >> from "man" to "info" for basic reference. > > I

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> > This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult > > to write a texinfo file, and there are many benefits to do that. > > However, I have always regretted, even resented, GNU's transition > from "man" to "info" for basic reference. I *fully* agree. It seems that you've got the

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On 22-Oct-05 Werner LEMBERG wrote: >> > . Documentation of GNU projects should be in texinfo format. >> >> Err, there are lots of so-called GNU projects that aren't documented >> in texinfo. > > This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult to > write a texinfo file, and ther

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> > . Documentation of GNU projects should be in texinfo format. > > Err, there are lots of so-called GNU projects that aren't documented > in texinfo. This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult to write a texinfo file, and there are many benefits to do that. Werner

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> And as the primary whiner on this topic, I'll volunteer to do the > work to convert the existing texinfo docs to roff. This is a great offer, but I wonder whether it makes sense to use the time you are willing to invest in a better way. . I won't give up on groff.texinfo. This consequently

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 09:10:39AM +1000, Miklos Somogyi wrote: > > On 22/10/2005, at 6:00 AM, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > >I'm not sure how you are going to get more roff users when the first > >thing > >they see is the project not using its own product. A documentation > >tool > >where the docum

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On 22/10/2005, at 6:00 AM, Larry McVoy wrote: I'm not sure how you are going to get more roff users when the first thing they see is the project not using its own product. A documentation tool where the documentation for it is written in a different tool? Come on, nobody is going to say "

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 09:31:05PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > > I'd be happy to submit patches once it's converted to roff but I > > > > just can't bring myself to submit documentation fixes to roff > > > > docs written in texinfo. > > > > > > Sorry, this won't happen for various reasons. >

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> > > I'd be happy to submit patches once it's converted to roff but I > > > just can't bring myself to submit documentation fixes to roff > > > docs written in texinfo. > > > > Sorry, this won't happen for various reasons. > > I know you've told me before but it must not have been a very > satisfy

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> > Keith, maybe you've sent this as a private mail to David ... > > Not intentionally. Looks like I hit "Reply" instead of > "Reply-to-All", forgetting that groff list mailings don't set the > "Reply-to" header appropriately :-( Could this be altered, as say, > the SourceForge mail lists do? Mh

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> Thanks for the pdf. I had a look at the previous version a while ago > but a China tour rudely interrupted my studies of it :-) 你講中文嗎? > Certainly I would like to see a groff manual written in groff, with > plenty of colour and graphics. I envision that the best route is to extend the UTP for

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On 19/10/2005, at 11:23 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: For me a much better documentation would be enough, [...] Have you actually looked at groff.texinfo? A pdf-Version can be found at http://groff.ffii.org/groff/groff-1.19.2.pdf Comments (and patches!) to improve this are highly welcome.

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:01:24PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > Have you actually looked at groff.texinfo? A pdf-Version can be > > > found at > > > > > > http://groff.ffii.org/groff/groff-1.19.2.pdf > > > > > > Comments (and patches!) to improve this are highly welcome. > > > > I'd be hap

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> > Have you actually looked at groff.texinfo? A pdf-Version can be > > found at > > > > http://groff.ffii.org/groff/groff-1.19.2.pdf > > > > Comments (and patches!) to improve this are highly welcome. > > I'd be happy to submit patches once it's converted to roff but I > just can't bring myself

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Which is the *best* editor? The one I know in I know my spine. Or in the case of vi, my fingers. I've been known to write about Un*x topics in a GUI text editor, start jackhammering the 'j' key, and wonder why the cursor isn't moving down. Is anyone collecting the "reasons for using gr

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Meg McRoberts wrote > > I prefer HTML as an output format from the same source that can also > generate PS, PDF, formatted ASCII... It's great to get a technical > document into HTML to display on the web but if I want a printed > copy, the HTML doc isn't compact enough to be satisfying... I wo

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Hi I prefer sam as a editor for UNIX. and if possible, acme. Both came from Plan9. May be there is someone interested in those :=) Gabriel 2005/10/20, Zahar Malinovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wednesday 19 October 2005 17:22, Jon Snader wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0100, Ke

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Wednesday 19 October 2005 17:22, Jon Snader wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0100, Keith MARSHALL wrote: > > I've tried various editors in my time, Emacs among them. But, I > > keep going back to vi, (or (g)vim), for personal choice. > > In the end, there can be only one. > If only

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 07:52:50AM -0400, M Bianchi wrote: > Which is the *best* editor? > The one I know in I know my spine. Take 2: Which is the *best* editor? The one I know in my spine. -- Mike who cannot proofread his own email Bianchi __

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Meg McRoberts wrote: I've been fiddling with OpenOffice lately. In this context, I consider OpenOffice to be equivalent to Word (yeah, I know, at least it's not a proprietary format and all). And that things basically *work* in OOo. For technical documents, I need a lot more flexibility t

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Which is the *best* editor? The one I know in I know my spine. Which is the second best editor? The one used by most of the folks around me, because that means they can help me and I can help them and deep shared knowledge is an exponential function.

Re: [Groff] Introduction

For my editing work I also use joe, not emacs :-) But the built-in Lisp interpreter of emacs allows to do mighty things... This brings up a funny story from when I first started as chief webmaster. There's several files on fencepost (there used to be *lots* of files, including on the FTP se

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Comments (and patches!) to improve this are highly welcome. I'm all ears (or eyes, as the case may be). ___ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> I've been fiddling with OpenOffice lately. It's not a beauty, but it's > sturdy and does a pretty good job importing & exporting Word > files. I've literally had cases where OpenOffice had better luck > with a seriously gnarly Word file than did Word itself. In this context, I consider OpenOffic

Re: [Groff] Introduction

There's a CVS repository for the UTP -- which isn't publicly available currently for unfortunate reasons. This should be moved into the public again -- IIRC, Larry McVoy has offered this a longer time ago. It's up to Larry Koller to proceed since he was (and hopefully still is) the driving for

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Clarke Echols wrote: ... By learning to use the tools, and nothing more complicated than simple shell scripts (I don't have the skills to get fancy because I don't think they're all that necessary when an easier approach works well), I was able to consistently get more done than any 4-10 peopl

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Working down the backlog... I spend my days writing large, complex, highly-technical documents in Word for this reason. It's quite ugly, but we have to have documents that sales people and engineers and such can extract and "repurpose"... And young engineers don't know how to roff any more tha

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Wed, Oct 19, 2005, Alejandro López-Valencia wrote: > On 10/19/05, Jon Snader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0100, Keith MARSHALL wrote: > > > > > > I've tried various editors in my time, Emacs among them. But, I > > > keep going back to vi, (or (g)vim), for p

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On 10/19/05, Jon Snader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0100, Keith MARSHALL wrote: > > > > I've tried various editors in my time, Emacs among them. But, I > > keep going back to vi, (or (g)vim), for personal choice. > > > > In the end, there can be only one. Chri

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 03:23:43PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > For me a much better documentation would be enough, [...] > > Have you actually looked at groff.texinfo? A pdf-Version can be found at > > http://groff.ffii.org/groff/groff-1.19.2.pdf > > Comments (and patches!) to improve th

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0100, Keith MARSHALL wrote: > > I've tried various editors in my time, Emacs among them. But, I > keep going back to vi, (or (g)vim), for personal choice. > In the end, there can be only one. jcs ___ Groff mailin

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> > This is related to the general editing capabilities of Emacs which > > are superior to most other editors. > > Oh, oh. This looks like an invitation to start a religious war, > (which I *don't* want to get into). :-) OK, OK! > I've tried various editors in my time, Emacs among them. But,

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> For me a much better documentation would be enough, [...] Have you actually looked at groff.texinfo? A pdf-Version can be found at http://groff.ffii.org/groff/groff-1.19.2.pdf Comments (and patches!) to improve this are highly welcome. Werner

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Werner Lemberg wrote: > This is related to the general editing capabilities of Emacs > which are superior to most other editors. Oh, oh. This looks like an invitation to start a religious war, (which I *don't* want to get into). :-) I've tried various editors in my time, Emacs among them. But,

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On 19-Oct-05 Miklos Somogyi wrote: > [...] > If troff and Co is to survive, then changes are necessary. > No use to tell managers to lean on engineers to use proper tools. > They would rather lean on someone who wants something else, > not a PC. > > To close it with an appropriate joke: > > The

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Werner Lemberg wrote: >> In the case of SGR sequences, unless the user specifically uses >> the `--enable-sgr' option, [...] > > Keith, maybe you've sent this as a private mail to David ... Not intentionally. Looks like I hit "Reply" instead of "Reply-to-All", forgetting that groff list mailings

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On 19/10/2005, at 3:18 PM, Clarke Echols wrote: The problem is that these engineers don't have managers with sense enough to lean on them to learn to use better tools to get more done in less time. By learning to use the tools, and nothing more complicated than simple shell scripts (I don't ha

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Miklos Somogyi wrote: > On 19/10/2005, at 7:19 AM, Meg McRoberts wrote: > The vast majority could put up with frequent crashes, with long > printing times > of very simple documents, with the fact that things did not really > looked like they should have, > that they had to do repeat jobs one-

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On 19/10/2005, at 7:19 AM, Meg McRoberts wrote: Older engineers know (or once knew) some *roff... Not so much the younger ones. A whole generation went through college without learning much of anything about Unix/Linux, sadly. I work with a lot of fairly decent engineers who don't really un

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Larry, I say Amen to your dream. Until then I am looking for a wireless keyboard with lots of special keys, that are all mine, and enough space around them to put my notes there, that would do the same: insert markups etc into the file :-) Miklos On 19/10/2005, at 7:41 AM, Larry McVoy wrote

Re: [Groff] Introduction

>In the case of SGR sequences, unless the user specifically uses >the `--enable-sgr' option, [...] Keith, maybe you've sent this as a private mail to David (who has replied accidentally to the list)? It looks interesting, so I ask you to send the full text to the list. Werner ___

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Meg McRoberts wrote: > > > You can teach them, and a lot more of them know it than you think, they > > write man pages. My first encounter with troff was in 1985 when I was assigned the task of the HP-UX reference for HP-UX 5.0. The project was taken over by HP-Cupertino staff in 1986, then I

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 11:18:36PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > Like all UNIX tools, the specialized ones are the most viable. I > > lament the day groff goes gui. However, I think that a seperate gui > > frontend is not a bad idea. > > Hmm, on today's computer everything is so fast that

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> You can teach them, and a lot more of them know it than you think, they > write man pages. Older engineers know (or once knew) some *roff... Not so much the younger ones. A whole generation went through college without learning much of anything about Unix/Linux, sadly. I work with a lot of f

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> The power of groff, as a typesetting program, is in its speed and > scaleability. It quite happily gobbles up a 7GB '.trf' file > producing 900,000+ pages of coloured postscript in under 4 hours > (always impresses me!!). Whew! Impressive indeed. Can you give more details? Werner _

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> > And there seems to be a good groff mode for vim. Unfortunately, > > the groff mode for emacs is rather bad AFAIK... > > > > > Yet roff (1) reads "The best program for editing a roff document is > Emacs (or Xemacs)"...! This is related to the general editing capabilities of Emacs which are sup

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> Like all UNIX tools, the specialized ones are the most viable. I > lament the day groff goes gui. However, I think that a seperate gui > frontend is not a bad idea. Hmm, on today's computer everything is so fast that the editor->groff->ps->ghostview cycle can be run amost constantly in the ba

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> The first thing that comes to mind is that there is text before > the DTD. This kills compliance support for IE, if not some other > browsers. Aah, yes, grohtml doesn't produce fully valid HTML. I assume that Gaius is overloaded with work since he mentioned a longer time ago that he is going

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> > Be warned that I need a copyright assignment (from those who > > haven't assigned one already) in case the added code is longer > > than around 15 lines. > > As far as formal copyright is concerned, I'm not sure of the > implications. You don't have to worry since you've already signed a cop

Re: [Groff] Introduction

On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:30:06PM -0700, Meg McRoberts wrote: > Sadly, I fear that it's too late to really save groff... > And young engineers > don't know how to roff any more than the salespeople do ;-( You can teach them, and a lot more of them know it than you think, they write man pages. --

Re: [Groff] Introduction

I don't know if the offers to see naked pictures of Ted's wife and such actually went through the mailing list -- they just came with the spoofed sender stuff... Come to think of it, it's been a while since we've had any problems, hasn't it? Hopefully that's all in the past... We all know that t

Re: [Groff] Introduction

> > I really would like to see the UTP improved, this is, all > > references to dead features/programs should be removed, and the > > new groff features should be incorporated as extensions. > > Yes, I know we talked about that... It's just a question of time. > There's a small number of you who

Re: [Groff] Introduction

Sadly, I fear that it's too late to really save groff... But the advantage of a GUI is that casual users could use the GUI and the rest of us could use real groff. It's hard to justify doc tools that are fairly complicated to use and known by very few these days... I spend my days writing large,

  1   2   >