On Thu, Jul 09, 2015, Deri James wrote:
> Tadziu said:-
>
> > The first element of the Widths array on line 315 of the PDF is
> > a "T". If you change that to a "0", everything seems to work
> > again. I have no idea what could create such an error, however.
>
> Which I believe is what Peter fi
Hi James,
> > 93cc5719150cfa2a74fbd265e26cb3876529b4b6 -
>
> Has it been updated since this started?
Yep.
> I get c2f7a1b7bd3eac6e764c81855b00dde7f11b7af5.
Me too.
Cheers, Ralph.
On Thu 09 Jul 2015 07:04:53 Doug McIlroy wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> I've fixed the offending line in the Mission Statement pdf
>
> Out of curiosity, what was the offense? Did some groff construct
> lead to it?
>
> Doug
Tadziu said:-
> The first element of the Widths array on line 315 of the PDF is
Peter wrote:
I've fixed the offending line in the Mission Statement pdf
Out of curiosity, what was the offense? Did some groff construct
lead to it?
Doug
qpdfview works fine,
acroread 9.5.5 shoes the menu but blank pages and an empty error message
popup.
Foxitreader 1.1 shows headers but the lines of text are predominantly
overstruck at the left margin.
pdfedit reports
libpng warning: Interlace handling should be turned on when using
png_
Deri --
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015, Deri James wrote:
> On Wed 08 Jul 2015 17:56:10 Peter Schaffter wrote:
>
> > I've fixed the offending line in the Mission Statement pdf
>
> How fixed?
>
> A) Editing line identified by Tadziu by hand, or
>
> B) Regenerating from original source with current tools?
> "RC" == Ralph Corderoy writes:
RC> To confirm we're all using the same bytes,
RC> $ curl -sS
http://www.gnu.org/software/groff/groff-mission-statement.pdf |
>> sha1sum
RC> 93cc5719150cfa2a74fbd265e26cb3876529b4b6 -
Has it been updated since this started?
I get c2f7a1b7bd3eac6e7
> "MB" == Mike Bianchi writes:
MB> Occasionally I use the hack of extracting the PostScript with
MB> pdf2ps(1) and then use ps2pdf12(1) to turn it back into PDF.
If you want ghostscript to re-create a pdf, you can pass the pdf
directly to ps2pdf.
-JimC
--
James Cloos OpenPGP: 0x99
On Wed 08 Jul 2015 17:56:10 Peter Schaffter wrote:
> I've fixed the offending line in the Mission Statement pdf and
> tested it with a batch of viewers. Seems to be working fine.
> Uploaded the .pdf to the groff webpage.
How fixed?
A) Editing line identified by Tadziu by hand, or
B) Regenerating
On 7/8/15, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> I've fixed the offending line in the Mission Statement pdf and
> tested it with a batch of viewers. Seems to be working fine.
Works for me now in both the packages that failed before. Thanks!
On 7/8/15, Mike Bianchi wrote:
> I have reading found PDFs are sometimes problematic in Linux.
True though that may be in general, a PDF containing a mission
statement for a GNU package really ought to be readable with common
FLOSS packages.
Further, if (as I presume) the document was generated
I've fixed the offending line in the Mission Statement pdf and
tested it with a batch of viewers. Seems to be working fine.
Uploaded the .pdf to the groff webpage.
--
Peter Schaffter
http://www.schaffter.ca
xpdf also works, but produces several occurrences of
Error: Illegal entry in bfrange block in ToUnicode CMap
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:30:42 -0400
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> > > Are you aware that somenthing has happened to the mission
> > > statement PDF and that it is totally undreada
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 20:29:28 +0100, in message
20150708192928.4dc4828...@orac.inputplus.co.uk, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> > > > http://www.gnu.org/software/groff/groff-mission-statement.pdf
> ...
> > When I check the link, the PDF is fine. It hasn't been touched
> > since it was uploa
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 12:14:10PM -0700, Chad Roseburg wrote:
> It looks scrambled in Chrome's PDF viewer but looks fine if you download it
> and view it with Adobe Reader, Evince ...etc.
I have reading found PDFs are sometimes problematic in Linux.
They are not the "just works" documents they on
On 08/07/15 19:30, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
>>> Are you aware that somenthing has happened to the mission statement
>>> PDF and that it is totally undreadable?
>>>
>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/groff/groff-mission-statement.pdf
>>
>> Uh, oh, no, this is new to me. Thanks for the repo
Hi Peter,
> > > http://www.gnu.org/software/groff/groff-mission-statement.pdf
...
> When I check the link, the PDF is fine. It hasn't been touched
> since it was uploaded. Anybody else getting "totally unreadable"?
To confirm we're all using the same bytes,
$ curl -sS http://www.gnu.org/so
On 7/8/15, Chad Roseburg wrote:
> It looks scrambled in Chrome's PDF viewer but looks fine if you download it
> and view it with Adobe Reader, Evince ...etc.
When I view it with gv 3.7.3, all I see are headers, no body text.
When I attempt to view it with acroread 9.5.5, the program locks up.
It looks scrambled in Chrome's PDF viewer but looks fine if you download it
and view it with Adobe Reader, Evince ...etc.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> > > Are you aware that somenthing has happened to the mission statement
> > > PDF and that it is totall
Hi, all.
> > Are you aware that somenthing has happened to the mission statement
> > PDF and that it is totally undreadable?
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/groff/groff-mission-statement.pdf
>
> Uh, oh, no, this is new to me. Thanks for the report!
>
> Peter?
I've been away for a couple of
Think it would be good if you fix it, since groff is all about excellent
typesetting...! ;)
Mats
-Original Message-
From: werner.lemb...@gmx.de [mailto:werner.lemb...@gmx.de] On Behalf Of Werner
LEMBERG
Sent: den 6 juli 2015 18:23
To: Broberg, Mats
Cc: groff@gnu.org
Subject: Re: MIssion
> > Are you aware that somenthing has happened to the mission statement
> > PDF and that it is totally undreadable?
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/groff/groff-mission-statement.pdf
>
> Uh, oh, no, this is new to me. Thanks for the report!
The first element of the Widths array on line 315
Hello Mats!
> Are you aware that somenthing has happened to the mission statement
> PDF and that it is totally undreadable?
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/groff/groff-mission-statement.pdf
Uh, oh, no, this is new to me. Thanks for the report!
Peter?
Werner
On Thu, Sep 18 2014 at 01:41:50 AM, Dave Kemper wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it an oversight that the Mission Statement section of the project
> page (http://www.gnu.org/software/groff/#mission-statement) contains
> only two of the three groff source files needed to produce the
>
Hi,
Is it an oversight that the Mission Statement section of the project
page (http://www.gnu.org/software/groff/#mission-statement) contains
only two of the three groff source files needed to produce the
formatted mission statement? Or was mission-statement-strings.mom
intentionally omitted for
> A good friend of mine uses plain TeX and LaTeX because he has to use
> Lilypond, [...]
You are aware that Bernd Warken has recently contributed the
`glilypond' perl script to integrate lilypond output into groff? You
might check out groff's git repository to get this – he is certainly
interest
esetting problem, *but* ONE. Still groffing.
[...]
> GROFF MISSION STATEMENT, 2014, 2nd draft
[...]
> Future groff development will focus on these areas:
[...]
> Backend
>
> The biggest challenge facing groff is the implementation of
> paragraph-at-once formatting based on th
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014, Steve Izma wrote:
> > As the most widely-deployed implementation of troff in use today,
>
> One very minor quibble: you don't need the hyphen after "widely".
Thanks. :)
--
Peter Schaffter
http://www.schaffter.ca
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 06:38:49PM -0400, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Subject: [Groff] Mission statement - final
> Groff Mission Statement
> 2014
Yes, I like it too. Very well stated.
> As the most widely-deployed implementation
Ralph --
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > CORE GROFf
>
> 'f'. Looks like a ligature?
How appropriate. :)
I use vi. Methinks I must have typed '4~' instead of '5~'.
Cheers.
--
Peter Schaffter
http://www.schaffter.ca
Hi Peter,
> CORE GROFf
'f'. Looks like a ligature?
Cheers, Ralph.
Peter Schaffter :
> Unless anyone has quibbles with specific vocabulary, this will
> be our mission statement.
It's good. Well done.
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 06:38:49PM -0400, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Groff Mission Statement
> 2014
I like.
And I like the path we took to get here.
Congratulations to all involved.
--
Mike Bianchi
Foveal Systems
973 822-2085
ieve it reflects the consensus of the list, and puts
an attractive face on groff for the benefit of anyone wishing to
join the development team.
Groff Mission Statement
2014
As the
Ralph --
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > Filtered through a simple sed script, the resulting mom file preserves
> > all of the semantics, has *no* low-level groff requests, and requires
> > exactly 4 trivial tweaks (to satisfy my personal aesthetics).
>
> OOI, do you code those tw
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014, Dave Kemper wrote:
> On 3/27/14, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> > Have you checked out the 'install-font.sh' script at
> >
> > http://www.schaffter.ca/mom/mom-05.html#install-font
> >
> > Takes about two seconds to install a font.
>
> I've used this script and I agree it's great
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:34:27AM -0500, Dave Kemper wrote:
>
> > But my fundamental complaint about Knuthian line-breaking is
> > that anything that takes 66 journal pages to describe can't be
> > right.
>
Most of the 66 pages are motivation, examples, and results.
The description of the algori
>> Have you checked out the 'install-font.sh' script [...]
>
> I've used this script and I agree it's great. But it's not part of
> groff, not distributed with groff, [...]
I don't object if someone is adding this to groff's `contrib'
directory (however, using a better name like `install-groff-
On 3/27/14, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014, Boss Hog wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:34:27AM -0500, Dave Kemper wrote:
>> >
>> > My feeling is that the quality of the line-breaking algorithm is something
>> > that will be noticed by typography nerds, but the difficulty of insta
Hi Eric,
> Does anyone have contact with the author? I cannot think of any other
> plaisible way to trace the location of the code back to a person with
> release authority at Alcatel-Lucent.
He's at Drew now. http://www.users.drew.edu/~cvanwyk/cvwvita.htm I
think that email address may be out
Ralph Corderoy :
> Perhaps [ideal has] become available since then as part of one of their
> re-licensings?
I can find no evidence of any such happy development on the web.
> Are you aware of
>
> http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cstr/103.ps.gz,
> CSTR #103, C. J. Van Wyk, Bell Labs, Decembe
Hi Peter,
> Filtered through a simple sed script, the resulting mom file preserves
> all of the semantics, has *no* low-level groff requests, and requires
> exactly 4 trivial tweaks (to satisfy my personal aesthetics).
OOI, do you code those tweaks as sed?
> [heading 2] "Manpages"
>
> The n
Hi,
Doug wrote:
> There is one property of TeX (and HTML) that's worth emulating:
> recursive nesting. It's a challenge to the preprocessor model (eqn,
> tbl, pic), but one that deserves serious consideration. How about
> letting "preprocessors" be called by piping segments out and back, not
> o
Hi Eric,
Doug wrote:
> > In pic, the thing I miss most is polygons (preferably allowing arcs
> > and splines as edges) that can be filled. After that, the next step
> > is a big one: lightweight constraint-based drawing; Van Wyk's Ideal
> > (SIGPLAN Notices 16:6) is a proof of concept. Can that b
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014, Boss Hog wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:34:27AM -0500, Dave Kemper wrote:
> >
> > My feeling is that the quality of the line-breaking algorithm is something
> > that will be noticed by typography nerds, but the difficulty of installing
> > new typefaces...
Have you chec
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:34:27AM -0500, Dave Kemper wrote:
>
> My feeling is that the quality of the line-breaking algorithm is something
> that will be noticed by typography nerds, but the difficulty of installing
> new typefaces is something that will be noticed by any groff user who
> wants a
> My feeling is that the quality of the line-breaking algorithm is
> something that will be noticed by typography nerds, [...]
You will notice that immediately if you reduce the line length. The
shorter the lines, the more problematic is groff's paragraph layout.
If you want to set, say, three-c
On 3/25/14, Doug McIlroy wrote:
> As for real Knuthian line-breaking: when forced to use TeX, I
> typically resort to "/sloppy" mode to avoid the temper tantrums
> TeX throws when it can't do a good job.
I've never used TeX, so I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are the
temper tantrums peculiar
> The biggest culprit is info--a maddeningly archaic facility to which
> Gnu clings tenaciously. Unless it can be foreseen how new man
> macros would displace texinfo from its throne, the exercise will
> largely be in vain.
I think this is a bit unfair. Given that info was essentially the
first
Hi Peter,
Peter Schaffter wrote on Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:40:44PM -0400:
> Subject to a few wording changes (suggestions welcome), this
> represents the final version of the mission statement.
Reading this once and then again a few days later, if find no
more points i would suggest to improve.
Doug McIlroy :
> I agree that good candidates for updating the man macros are likely
> to be found among the readership of this mailing list. However,
> the biggest problem with man pages is that people don't write them.
> groff_mom(7) is a recent example--all it does is point somewhere
> else. The
I have just seen that these comments, which have been gestating
for some time, are somewhat outdated by the appearance of mission
statement 3. Still I think they may be of some use.
Mission statement 2 begins with a precis of what groff is, but no |
overt expression of the purpose of the groff
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> this represents the final version of the mission statement.
This is a fine final version.
Pierre-Jean.
Peter Schaffter :
> Subject to a few wording changes (suggestions welcome), this
> represents the final version of the mission statement.
+1
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
etics). I'll be happy to post the
mommified version if anyone wants to see it.
[title] "Groff Mission Statement"
[subtitle] "2014"
[draft] 3
[include] mission-statement-style.mom
As the most widely-de
Hi Anton,
> > I read _The TeXbook_ and returned to troff. The input language of
> > troff is superior for mark-up that doesn't clutter the prose
>
> Nobody I know of uses raw tex nowadays. I'd advise against reading
> The TeXbook. For people who just want to get their standard
> technical/scie
>To: groff@gnu.org
>Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:06:29 +
>From: Ralph Corderoy
>
>I read _The TeXbook_ and returned to troff. The input language of troff
>is superior for mark-up that doesn't clutter the prose, e.g. often small
Nobody I know of uses raw tex nowadays.
I'd advise against reading
Hi Steve,
> > * Strange, irregular, archaic-seeming markup design compared to XML
> > or even TeX. Brian Kernignan called it "rebarbative" in *1979*.
>
> Groff is a filter. The input language, the markup, etc., is entirely
> arbitary.
I read _The TeXbook_ and returned to troff. The input langu
Hi,
Werner wrote:
> Please do me a favour: Don't call this `hygienic'. Say `restricted'
> instead.
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/bondage-and-discipline-language.html
`.bnd'? :-)
Cheers, Ralph.
Hello alls,
Deri James wrote:
> If I have misunderstood Eric's intentions with regard to the purpose of
> introducing the .hygiene command, then it would be very helpful if he could
> elucidate further.
The .hygiene command is an interesting debate. I don't
exactly know what to think about
Werner LEMBERG :
> Please do me a favour: Don't call this `hygienic'. Say `restricted'
> instead. Today, technical English for software must satisfy some
> constraints, IMHO, and one of them is the avoidance of `colourful'
> terms that might call unwanted associations, especially if there are
> a
>> Any feel for how many man pages would be affected by the .hygiene
>> command?
>
> Based on doclifter's conversion failure rate, no more than 6%. But
> the unhygienic set can be tuned so the error rate is below that by
> failing to exclude constructs that we decide to consider rare but
> kosher
Deri James :
> Any feel for how many man pages would be affected by the .hygiene
> command?
Based on doclifter's conversion failure rate, no more than 6%. But
the unhygienic set can be tuned so the error rate is below that by
failing to exclude constructs that we decide to consider rare but kos
Groffers:
I'm having trouble coming up with an opening paragraph, so
straight to it.
1. The goal is improving semantic markup in manpages.
2. Ingo and Eric presented proposals for how it might be done. Their
proposals differed only in approach.
3. Together, the proposals dovetail into a
Hi Deri,
sorry, this got a bit long, but i didn't manage to explain why part
of your arguments seem slightly theoretical without showing a few
practical examples found in the wild.
Deri James wrote on Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:10:56PM +:
> On Wed 19 Mar 2014 15:22:42 Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>> T
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 07:01:48PM -, Ted Harding wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Groff] Mission statement, second draft
>
> On 19-Mar-2014 05:11:33 Steve Izma wrote:
> > But even besides this, TeX is not a filter (so it does play well
> > with other filters) and is very nois
On Wed 19 Mar 2014 20:29:12 Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > If I have misunderstood Eric's intentions with regard to the purpose of
> > introducing the .hygiene command, then it would be very helpful if he
> > could elucidate further.
>
> The reason to write .hygiene isn't doclifter, it's to allow ot
Deri James :
> This seems to be the difference between Ingo and Eric's approach. Ingo is
> correct in saying we should be trying to win hearts and minds of man page
> authors to use macros which include semantic information, but Eric says
> we must stop any man pages which include presentation m
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 18:13:11 -0400
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> * Strange, irregular, archaic-seeming markup design compared to XML or
> even TeX. Brian Kernignan called it "rebarbative" in *1979*.
Yes, and typeset "D is for Digital" with groff in 2011. Also available
for Kindle.
More telling
On Wed 19 Mar 2014 15:22:42 Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > SO: Supposing that this proposed enterprise goes ahead, WILL WE
> > STILL BE ABLE TO USE GROFF AS WE ALWAYS HAVE DONE?
>
> Yes.
Except if you are a man page author who wants to use all the troff syntax,
in which case you will find that "some
Hi Ted,
Ted Harding wrote on Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 07:01:48PM -:
> A lot of this discussion (which I have tended to keep out of, because
> it is about issues that rarely concern me; and also has not always
> been clear) has been about creating a new, and structured, approach
> to the formattin
Ted Harding :
> QUESTION: It has not become clear to me, from this discussion,
> to what extent this might interfere with core groff. At times,
> Eric Raymond has written as though this would involve a complete
> re-make of groff, with the potential inplication that use of groff
> for other purpose
can and make
> human judgements throughout the text. You can't rely on
> algorithms, although obviously they can reduce problems
> considerably.
Again I heartily agree! (See also below).
> But even besides this, TeX is not a filter (so it does play well
> with other filters) a
> "DMW" == Denis M Wilson writes:
DMW> Oh, and the PDF document above was beyond my version of Firefox's
DMW> ability. I downloaded it: gv fails, finding errors and showing all
DMW> the wrong glyphs; evince showed it fine but a page at a time. I
DMW> regret to say that Adobe reader was the on
Ingo Schwarze :
> To do that, i first have to try and rehash Eric's plan,
> hoping this will be an adequate summary:
>
> (1) narrowing and simplifying the man markup language, decoupling it
> from groff peculiarities (without going into much detail yet
> which idioms exactly to discoura
Hi Peter,
Peter Schaffter wrote on Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:23:19PM -0400:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
>> Most significantly, the proposed format just doesn't exist...
>> you're stacking a known, stable product against an idea.
> I'm aware. Just to be clear, I'm still workin
ery noisy. Groff is clean and agile
compared to it.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 06:13:11PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Groff] Mission statement, second draft
> Here are several reasons groff gets written off as "weirdly retrotech":
>
> * The [nt]roff markup d
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Peter Schaffter :
> > If groff is as powerful as TeX while being one tenth the size,
> > why on earth does the author dismiss it out-of-hand as weirdly
> > retrotech?
>
> That's not a mystery to me. If it stays one to you, we have a
> problem; yo
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
> My agenda is just to have good manpages. To me, good means
> portable across systems and media, adhering to a common style, and
> having human-readable source. Good on GNU systems, BSD, HTML,
> PS... "good".
That puts us on the same page. :)
> T
Ingo Schwarze :
> Actually, there are four questions that are somewhat separate
> but also influence each other a bit:
>
> (1) What are we to do with man(7)?
> Eric proposes to carefully evolve it to introduce a small amount
> of semantic markup.
> I propose to provide continuing s
Peter Schaffter :
> Ignorance about groff as a complete typesetting system is
> practically pandemic. After five editions, O'Reilly's _Running
> Linux_ still demonstrates groff usage with a tutorial on writing
> manpages. And recently, I came upon this parenthetical comment at
> the Simon Fraser
don't mind heavy toolchains, they can
leave their existing stuff in man(7) and use doclifter. If
they do care, they can switch to mdoc(7) and use much simpler
tools, just as today.
Now, items (3) and (4) really need no decision in a groff mission
statement. In item (2), i sens
Hi,
Deri James wrote on Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 01:26:02PM +:
> On Tue 18 Mar 2014 12:58:09 Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> Security-wise, PDF is one of the most dangerous file formats, nowadays.
> That is true if the pdf reader you are using is configured to action
> all the extra bits which Adobe add
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Pierre-Jean wrote:
> Nonetheless, I think that if the goal is to publish this
> mission statement in the hope that it encourages people to
> join the groff community, a bit more of « writing art » will
> be needed: words that encourage someone to come and work on
> groff.
I a
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:29:50 -0400
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Joachim Walsdorff wrote:
> > it would be fine if you could provide an example text, formatted
> > both with groff and Heirloom troff, to demonstrate us the
> > typographic gain by `paragraph-at-once formatting´ aga
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Joachim Walsdorff wrote:
> > it would be fine if you could provide an example text, formatted
> > both with groff and Heirloom troff, to demonstrate us the
> > typographic gain by `paragraph-at-once formatting´ against `line
> > formatting´.
>
>
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Joachim Walsdorff wrote:
> it would be fine if you could provide an example text, formatted
> both with groff and Heirloom troff, to demonstrate us the
> typographic gain by `paragraph-at-once formatting´ against `line
> formatting´.
http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/doctools
more. We just don't know.
1. No matter how successfully mdoc/mandoc have replaced man/groff
in BSDs, groff remains a GNU project. Ingo's strategy comes
awfully close to touching on GNU policy itself, which doesn't
belong in a groff mission statement.
2. Ingo&#x
Hello folks,
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Here's the second draft of the mission statement, incorporating
> suggestions from Ingo, Eric, Pierre-Jean, and others. It's starting
> to come into focus, although a third pass will probably be necessary
> before we commit to it.
I mostly agree with that
On Tue 18 Mar 2014 12:58:09 Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Security-wise, PDF is
> one of the most dangerous file formats, nowadays.
That is true if the pdf reader you are using is configured to action all the
extra bits which Adobe added to the standard (i.e. forms, flash and
javascript). Without thes
to be a big job, and we *must*,
as a group, figure out how to attract programmers interested in
tackling it. Line-by-line formatting is, IMO, the single biggest
stumbling block to more widespread adoption of groff as a
typesetting system.
...
GROFF MISSION STATEMENT, 2014, 2nd draft
...
>
Hi,
James K. Lowden wrote on Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:03:33AM -0400:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:49:49 -0400 Peter Schaffter wrote:
>> Serving PDF manuals from the web has drawbacks, possibly
>> serious ones: it assumes an installed PDF reader, and there's
>> significant latency involved with firing
Hi Peter,
> Serving PDF manuals from the web has drawbacks, possibly serious ones:
> it assumes an installed PDF reader, and there's significant latency
> involved with firing one up.
I think the first assumption is reasonable these days, and the second I
only notice if it's Adobe Reader.
> [Der
> Groff throws a *lot* of curves like that at users, particularly
> macro writers. The problem extends beyond the simply incorrect
> computation
>
> .nr temp 7/3 --> \n[temp]=2
Well, `.nr' defines an integer register, so this is really OK. On the
other hand, depending on the register, `\n'
Peter Schaffter :
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014, Deri James wrote:
> > The stated goal for this is to enable doclifter to be able to
> > work better, so that manual pages are on the web, can be browsed
> > and navigated by clicking on links. Does it require doclifter to
> > achieve this? What if we come
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:49:49 -0400
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Serving PDF manuals from the web has drawbacks, possibly
> serious ones: it assumes an installed PDF reader, and there's
> significant latency involved with firing one up.
In 2014, is there a single web browser remaining not configured
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014, Deri James wrote:
> The stated goal for this is to enable doclifter to be able to
> work better, so that manual pages are on the web, can be browsed
> and navigated by clicking on links. Does it require doclifter to
> achieve this? What if we come from the other direction an
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014, Ted Harding wrote:
> In this reply, I would like to comment on my principal need for
> replacing integer arithmetic...
Your description of the hoops you have to jump through to get
groff/eqn to perform in what, sadly, is still a suboptimal manner
was terrific. I couldn't dec
Peter Schaffter :
> Here's the second draft of the mission statement, incorporating
> suggestions from Ingo, Eric, Pierre-Jean, and others. It's starting
> to come into focus, although a third pass will probably be necessary
> before we commit to it.
I'm OK with this version.
--
x27;s strategy comes
awfully close to touching on GNU policy itself, which doesn't
belong in a groff mission statement.
2. Ingo's strategy entails social engineering ("...actively
supporting the transition from man(7) to mdoc(7)"). So does
Eric's, howev
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
