Hi Tadziu,
> There's also pandoc, a markdown implementation (markdown is pretty
> similar to reStructuredText) which has a groff man backend. It
> probably wouldn't be to hard to extend this from man to other macro
> packages.
>
> http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/try
Interesting, thanks. I
> I've wondered about doing this and in particular noticed that the
> various utilities for converting from, e.g. reStructuredText,
>
> http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html
>
> don't have troff backends although they may have LaTeX ones, e.g.
> rst2latex. I'm guessing this is because th
Hi Peter,
> 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 I want to recycle
> them--say, into html.
I've wondered about doing this and in particular noticed
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,
>
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 make
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
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 08:57:32PM +0200, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Groff] Typesetting Software
>
> > using 'pdflatex' on the other hand allows to keep
> > everything as pdf. that's nicer.
>
> PDF sucks. It's not programmable, and m
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 not least: groff can produce reasonably formatting of ASCII
> > docu
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 08:55:23AM +0100, John¹ wrote:
> > Subject: [Groff] Typesetting Software
> >
> > 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
> >
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-pass.
Not sure what you mean by this, but groff and TeX are
pretty muc
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 08:55:23AM +0100, John¹ wrote:
> Subject: [Groff] Typesetting Software
>
> 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 p
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009, John? wrote:
> Many years ago, when type used to be set by hand, I was one of those who
> did the typesetting.
On the basis of your opening, I suggest, in addition to other
members' comments, that you take a look at the mom macro set for
groff. I'm assuming that, besides se
On Jun 03 2009 (Wed, 8:55), 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
On 03-Jun-09 07:55:23, 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?
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 will be a bias in asking
25 matches
Mail list logo
