Larry Kollar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2007-01-04 07:58 -0500:
> FO is sort of a "roach hotel" language in
> an XML sense -- once you have FO, you're not going to
> transform it to any other XML markup.
True, I guess that it's not likely that you'll be transforming it
to vocabularies other than FO. Th
Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
There is a alternative open-source DocBook-to-PDF/Postscript
option that already produces better output than FOP in many cases.
It's db2latex:
http://db2latex.sourceforge.net/
It doesn't use XSL-FO at all. Instead it translates DocBook to
LaTeX and then uses TeX to
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2006-12-25 21:17 +0100:
> Real *roff is hardly the problem since it has supported the
> two-character requests (except .do) for more than thirty years
> now. The issues are with scripts that convert manual pages or
> build indexes for them or whatever. I would sa
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2007-01-03 11:28 -0500:
> Michael(tm) Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The open-source XSL-FO engine project that truly deserves some
> > more help is Tony Graham's xmlroff:
> >
> > http://www.xmlroff.org/
>
> Why do you believe this has a future and FOP do
Michael(tm) Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think we could have a system in which man pages were stored on
> local systems simply as HTML (which could be HTML originally
> generated from DocBook or generated by some other means or even
> just authored directly in HTML), and "man " would just
> cause
Michael(tm) Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The open-source XSL-FO engine project that truly deserves some
> more help is Tony Graham's xmlroff:
>
> http://www.xmlroff.org/
Why do you believe this has a future and FOP doesn't?
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
_
Peter Schaffter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2006-12-23 12:12 -0500:
> I don't see any problem with the proposal of DocBook XML as the
> source from which manpages are actually rendered--provided
> engines exist to render XML manpages *at the terminal* as well
> as groff does.
If you mean to render man p
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2006-12-23 18:01 -0500:
> FOP is at 0.92 level now.
I'm not sure that should be seen as a sign of stability. Certainly
it shouldn't be seen as sign that it's anywhere close to being
compliant with the XSL-FO 1.0 spec (it isn't). And anyway, the
release previ
Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2006-12-23 15:06 -0500:
> I would classify myself as "skilled hands" too and I agree with your
> assessment of *roff and TeX (I used both extensively). However, I did
> write a 10 page technical document (34 with the appendices that simply
> include the files
Ted Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2006-12-23 00:48 -:
> Therefore my case for groff would not rest on man-pages. Indeed,
> if groff were superseded by something else for man-pages I would
> maintain that this would not diminsh the usefulness of groff,
> nor the necessity to keep it going.
>
>
Hi Gunnar,
> To avoid misunderstandings, I repeat that the situation is completely
> different for other troff-related aspects. We certainly do not need to
> care whether arbitrary documents compile with AIX troff. But nroff
> -man is a special case.
I think that's a good point as someone who ha
Meg McRoberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure of the solution but it seems that, if they could write in
> docbook, this opens the option of using an XML WYSIWYG editor if necessary.
Tools for conversion from DocBook to man are readily available.
Gunnar
___
Trust me, I'm no fan of WYSIWYG tools! But while I would
rather write in raw *roff, I have to face the reality that
it's not easy to convince the "youngsters" that it's worth
the effort to learn it. The nice thing about DocBook is that
it's possible for me to work in text format and other people
Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What I was more concerned with is general writing.
> Does an author of the book need to bother with semantic tagging on a
> scale that DocBook _requires_?
Personally, I like the kind of capabilities it gives me.
Moving the Jargon File from Texinfo to Doc
Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 08:51:37PM -0800, Meg McRoberts wrote:
> > I'm not sure of the solution but it seems that, if they could write in
> > docbook, this opens the option of using an XML WYSIWYG editor if
> > necessary.
>
> Which does not make the writing
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 08:51:37PM -0800, Meg McRoberts wrote:
> I'm not sure of the solution but it seems that, if they could write in
> docbook, this opens the option of using an XML WYSIWYG editor if
> necessary.
Which does not make the writing any faster.
Picking one of 100+ tags from the menu
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 11:11:34PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > There is a deeper philosophical question here.
> > Who needs to tag a document for all the sorts of semantic or any other
> > meaning? Is it the author or somebody else?
>
> Who tags the man pages you write? Who should tag them
Meg McRoberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If all this were implemented, would you envision that people writing
> new man pages would write them using -man or would they use docbook?
That would depend on your tradeoff between complexity and control.
Writing in man markup is the simpler way to go, but do
Eric, I really like your long-term vision, but have some questions
to extend it a bit.
If all this were implemented, would you envision that people writing
new man pages would write them using -man or would they use docbook?
My concern right now is with man pages for third-party software.
I work
Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > For someone as bothered by tag verbosity as you are I would recommend
> > using asciidoc, which can generate DocBook.
>
> I wonder why asciidoc?
Because it's the simplest way to compose DocBook-structured stuff I've
seen yet.
> Is it really any different
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 06:01:29PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> I use Emacs to edit DocBook markup directly.
That's not different from what I've been doing.
I wouldn't say that is a comfortable way of writing.
> For someone as bothered by tag verbosity as you are I would recommend
> using asci
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The other side of this is that you would either need to get
> > the new macros into the -man macros of AIX, HP-UX, and the
> > other remaining closed source Unix implementations, or you
> > should inform the main
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The other side of this is that you would either need to get
> the new macros into the -man macros of AIX, HP-UX, and the
> other remaining closed source Unix implementations, or you
> should inform the maintainers that their manual pages become
> less portable w
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that we can do a decent job by adding a small set of
> additional macros to man; this would have the benefit of getting a
> clear conversion with doclifter, and a standardized interface for
> future man pages (which current ones might adopt also
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know Gunnarr has concerns about macros we might add going unused, but I
> have some ability to influence that. I've successfully pushed over
> 200 man-page patches upstream to different projects.
The other side of this is that you would either nee
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I could also have it emit a FIXME warning that hand polishing might
> > be needed here. I try to avoid those without a really good reason,
> > though. Presently I think there's only one, attached to a truly
> > wacky edge case in processing of list marku
> I could also have it emit a FIXME warning that hand polishing might
> be needed here. I try to avoid those without a really good reason,
> though. Presently I think there's only one, attached to a truly
> wacky edge case in processing of list markup.
Is it possible to have a `verbose' mode of
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > See my long reply to Larry Kollar. It's not clear to me that anything
> > interesting can be deduced here, but I'm open to suggestions. What
> > kind of semantic-level tagging could we use in this situation? Would
> > be the right thing here?
>
> Perhaps
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See my long reply to Larry Kollar. It's not clear to me that anything
> interesting can be deduced here, but I'm open to suggestions. What
> kind of semantic-level tagging could we use in this situation? Would
> be the right thing here?
Perhaps .
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is from mush(1), July 17, 1996:
>
> An example:
> .sp
> .ti +2
> goto msg: `pick \-f argv`
> .sp
> This causes the current message . . .
>
> Others are in nasm(1), v. 0.98.38; sort(1), Unix 7th edition.
> Equivalent use of .in seems much more frequent.
S
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I have often used .in (and seen it used) in a context like
> > . Looking at a few pages, it seems that
> > others have used .ti similarly.
>
> Can you send me an example?
This is from mush(1), July 17, 1996:
An
Larry Kollar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Taking a brief look at the manpages on my computer, .in and .ti
> primarily appear in examples (see unzip.1) or nested lists
> (see tcpdump.1). Looking at tcpdump, I expect that it would
> give doclifter fits as well.
Nope, I handle tcpdump fine. In at least th
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
I would say a program that
claims to read manual pages is broken enough to be irrelevant
if it cannot at least handle
.br .fi .nf .sp .ig .in .ti
Doclifter might fail that test. It ignores .in and .ti, because
I don't know any way to extract structural informat
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have often used .in (and seen it used) in a context like
> . Looking at a few pages, it seems that
> others have used .ti similarly.
Can you send me an example?
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Real *roff is hardly the problem since it has supported the
> > two-character requests (except .do) for more than thirty years
> > now. The issues are with scripts that convert manual pages or
> > build indexes f
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Real *roff is hardly the problem since it has supported the
> two-character requests (except .do) for more than thirty years
> now. The issues are with scripts that convert manual pages or
> build indexes for them or whatever. I would say a program that
> claims
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From this list it supports anything except .fam.
>
> Sorry, I have to ask this because you're not a native English speaker
> and the above seems technically implausible: did you get the sense of
> the negative in that sentence reversed? That is, if
M Bianchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Since DocBook deduces _meaning_ from the presentation markup
DocBook does nothing of the sort. It's doclifter that does that.
> then I will claim
> that the correct path needs to be something like ...
> groff -man ->
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 01:35:09AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> :
> This is a much richer ontology than HTML, so man -> DocBook -> HTML
> produces best possible HTML. man -> HTML, on the other hand, ends up
> translating man pages into a sort of least-common-denominator ontology
> between
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 10:26:43PM -0500, Larry Kollar wrote:
> :
> The problem with using XML for documentation is that it was
> designed specifically for machine processing -- and *people*
> write documents for *other* people.
I agree and think this is _very_ important. groff -mm and -ms
Larry Kollar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> And, more to the point, why bother converting
> this entire body of documentation to DocBook if there's already
> a good way to convert it to cross-linked HTML? Wasn't that the
> whole point of this exercise anyway?
I tried to cover this earlier. T
> ... I agree with your assessment of *roff and TeX (I used both
> extensively). However, I did write a 10 page technical
> document (34 with the appendices that simply include the
> files) in DocBook-XML. I have turned away in disgust and
> never looked back.
I'll use Zvezdan's example here as
Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You mention above a good DocBook toolchain.
> Can you give us some detail?
> What do you use to produce DocBook-XML documents effectively?
> If you consider that this is off topic for the groff list, you can reply
> off the list. I'm really interested in giv
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Mhmm. I have yet to see a DocBook output which looks decent (in the
> sense of good typography) without postprocessing. Maybe I've seen
> only bad examples so far -- can you point me to something?
Um...the print version of "The Art of Unix Programming"? I t
> You mention above a good DocBook toolchain.
> Can you give us some detail?
> What do you use to produce DocBook-XML documents effectively?
> If you consider that this is off topic for the groff list, you can
> reply off the list. I'm really interested in giving DocBook another
> chance.
Please
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 12:25:01AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> I *am* "skilled hands" in that sense, having done successful
> full-length technical books in all three markups. Speaking from
> that experience, I rate groff better than TeX but inferior to a good
> DocBook toolchain (with the exc
Ted Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 23-Dec-06 Peter Schaffter wrote:
> >> > (And brace yourselves for the *real* political bunfight, which
> >> > is when I try to kill off GNU info...)
> >>
> >> You could have an ally ... !
> >
> > And quite possibly another. :) Although, ironically, I have to
On 23-Dec-06 Peter Schaffter wrote:
>> > (And brace yourselves for the *real* political bunfight, which
>> > is when I try to kill off GNU info...)
>>
>> You could have an ally ... !
>
> And quite possibly another. :) Although, ironically, I have to say
> I use groff's TeXinfo docs far more than
Peter Schaffter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Eric's Web-centric, fully-
> hypertexted documentation is the ideal, methinks, but not at the
> cost of losing the ability to type "man " at the command
> line.
Agreed. This is why I pushed a patch into man last year that teache
Joining the bunfight...
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006, Ted Harding wrote:
> I'm personally not that interested in "groff for man-pages" as
> such (though I think that it's as good as anything else so it
> might as well be used), in that I would not favour the intrinsic
> functionality of groff being vulner
50 matches
Mail list logo
