> > Hehe. It was me who has written the CJK package for LaTeX :-)
>
> Would you mind to add similar functions for groff, such as line
> break when using double width CJK fonts?
If you follow this list you can see that this is work in progress,
hopefully.
Werner
I've been watching & reading, waiting until I had a little time to
say my piece
Part of the issue is that *roff languished as a proprietary software
package for far too long. The Free world developed several subsets,
usually with -ms or -man (or some completely different thing) hard-
> Just so everything goes smoothly,
Thanks for the patch! I'll investigate soon.
> I want to know if it's a problem if I use std::map (and std::string
> and std::vector) in implementing character classes. I ask because
> it seems like every attempt has been made to avoid usage of the
> standar
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:18:10AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
That's a well-documented damned-if-I-do-damned-if-I-don't which has
nothing to do with how much we care about groff.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=196762
Fortunately Brian expressed an intent to work on the remain
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:23:38PM +1100, Robert Thorsby wrote:
> As the author of the comments that caused so much umbrage to Colin I
> should like to reply (and this will be my last post regarding this
> thread).
Puzzlement rather than umbrage.
> You are correct. My comments were intended to
On 03/01/08 14:04:05, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Add to this, *roff does not conform to The
> > Debian Way (which includes derivatives,
> > such as *buntu). This means that *roff is
> > deprecated, and therefore obsolete.
>
> For the record, I have no idea where this comes
> from, and it definitely d
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 09:14:38AM +1100, Robert Thorsby wrote:
> Add to this, *roff does not conform to The Debian Way (which includes
> derivatives, such as *buntu). This means that *roff is deprecated, and
> therefore obsolete.
For the record, I have no idea where this comes from, and it defi
I'm ready when you are. Just drop me a note.
Thanks!
Peter Schaffter wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007, Blake McBride wrote:
Clone LaTeX with mom, write a tutorial, and package it all up, and
we'll have a lot more people using groff/mom. I am willing to
help. Any takers?
I am so busy r
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007, Blake McBride wrote:
> Clone LaTeX with mom, write a tutorial, and package it all up, and
> we'll have a lot more people using groff/mom. I am willing to
> help. Any takers?
I am so busy right now that I can scarcely see the tunnel, let alone
the light at the end right now.
Peter Schaffter wrote:
I agree that the classical macro packages belong to another age,
and that that's off-putting for many people (hence the mom
package). Not so sure I agree it's "the big thing". I suspect
rather it's a mindset problem. Experienced *roffers are, by
nature, tinkerers. The
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007, Blake McBride wrote:
> Groff is so simple and strait forward in my experience.
I do believe that's the very first time I've ever heard someone
make that assertion. :)
> I think the big thing keeping people from making more use of Groff is the
> macro packages. mm, me, etc.
LaTeX does produce beautiful documents. Groff can too. Ignoring the
mathematical formula support which I don't use, I thought I'd share a
couple of opinions regarding TeX, LaTeX and Groff.
LaTeX produces absolutely beautiful documents right out of the box.
Minor modifications to the way L
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 18:51 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I pointed out the many O'Reilly books typeset with groff,
> and the fact that (at least at the time and for some years
> later) that the Collins Language Dictionaries were typeset
> using troff (and later groff), after translating from X
"Michael Kerpan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...that groff/troff seems to be written off by so many as "obsolete"
> and "only useful for man pages", despite the fact that it can do
> everything that TeX/LaTeX (seemingly the favored non-WYSIWYG document
> processor) can do
First, it cannot. TeX p
If *roff is only good for manpages, why was I able to create
master artwork for creating printed circuit cards, including
circuit path lines on both sides of the board as well as a
pad master for drilling holes through the card and a solder-resist
mask? :-)
Most folks think you need a CAD system
On 2007-12-14 12:25 -0500, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> ...that groff/troff seems to be written off by so many as "obsolete"
> and "only useful for man pages", despite the fact that it can do
> everything that TeX/LaTeX (seemingly the favored non-WYSIWYG document
> processor) can do but while taking up
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007, Robert Thorsby wrote:
> On 15/12/07 04:25:40, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> > ...that groff/troff seems to be written
> > off by so many as "obsolete" ...
>
> IMO it is all a matter of perceptions. People think that a 30 year
> old application that, even today, does not have a GUI
On Dec 16, 2007 5:56 PM, Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > at least, groff/troff without CTAN like things and the proper
> > ability to handle CJK characters through latex-cjk or xetex methods
> > in latex.
>
> Hehe. It was me who has written the CJK package for LaTeX :-)
>
>
> Admiri
> at least, groff/troff without CTAN like things and the proper
> ability to handle CJK characters through latex-cjk or xetex methods
> in latex.
Hehe. It was me who has written the CJK package for LaTeX :-)
Werner
On Dec 15, 2007 1:25 AM, Michael Kerpan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...that groff/troff seems to be written off by so many as "obsolete"
> and "only useful for man pages", despite the fact that it can do
> everything that TeX/LaTeX (seemingly the favored non-WYSIWYG document
> processor) can do b
On 14-Dec-07 17:25:40, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> ...that groff/troff seems to be written off by so many as
> "obsolete" and "only useful for man pages", despite the
> fact that it can do everything that TeX/LaTeX (seemingly
> the favored non-WYSIWYG document processor) can do but
> while taking up 3
On 15/12/07 04:25:40, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> ...that groff/troff seems to be written
> off by so many as "obsolete" ...
IMO it is all a matter of perceptions. People think that a 30 year old
application that, even today, does not have a GUI **must** be obsolete.
Add to this, *roff does not conf
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> ...that groff/troff seems to be written off by so many as "obsolete"
> and "only useful for man pages", despite the fact that it can do
> everything that TeX/LaTeX (seemingly the favored non-WYSIWYG document
> processor) can do but while taking up 3 me
...that groff/troff seems to be written off by so many as "obsolete"
and "only useful for man pages", despite the fact that it can do
everything that TeX/LaTeX (seemingly the favored non-WYSIWYG document
processor) can do but while taking up 3 megabytes (as opposed to the
300 or so used by the aver
24 matches
Mail list logo
