Bruno Haible:
> Anton Shepelev:
>
> > Is it possible to tell groff to use the standard
> > hyphen-minus sign of the ASCII table instead of
> > \[u2012] for hyphenation?
>
> People who ask this usually have a groff input
> that uses '-' both to designate a hyphen (between
> English words) and
> The "crude hack" [...] effectively turns apostrophe into prime,
> known in groff as foot mark, \[fm], which may be what you were
> hoping for.
I disagree. The prime (or foot mark, or minute mark) is
actually slightly slanted, whereas the typewriter quote is
(usually) exactly vertical. The typ
I accidently came upon what seems to me an unfair
judgement about groff and TeX:
As an example: In a presentation-markup lan-
guage, if you want to emphasize a word, you
might instruct the formatter to set it in
boldface. In troff(1) this would look like
so:
A
I'm not competent at TeX -- haven't even seen TeX source
files for years. I refer to troff source coded without
macros as "in-line" coding (normal text \f3bold text\f1 normal
text) where fonts are defined in a macro file or at the start
of the document.
For HTML and other SGML-like markups, the
I think esr is emphasizing (!) that in a structural-markup language the
tags can have no typographic meaning whatsoever.
While it may be possible to mimic the tags of structural markup in a
presentation-markup language, there is power in completely and firmly
separating the two aspects: you
> Macros come closer to "structural", but really aren't.
I disagree. There is no principal difference between
All your base
.EMPH are
belong to us!
and
All your base are belong to us!
It's a purely a matter of syntax, not intent.
> They're more a shorthand method to save typing, an
> I think esr is emphasizing (!) that in a structural-markup
> language the tags can have no typographic meaning whatsoever.
Correct. What Anton was considering unfair is the implication
that troff only does presentational markup, while it is entirely
possible to use structural markup (with an
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Tadziu Hoffmann
wrote:
>
>> Macros come closer to "structural", but really aren't.
>
> I disagree. There is no principal difference between
>
> All your base
> .EMPH are
> belong to us!
>
> and
>
> All your base are belong to us!
>
> It's a purely a matter of s
On Thu, May 03, 2012, mikkel meinike wrote:
> I am much of an "image-man"
> (I did this once http://home.no/mlinux/postscri.htm)
> so I need to hav good image processing procedures.
>
> Peter did you do any tutorials or demos on the work with text and images in
> mom?
Owing to the nature of my o
On Thu, May 03, 2012, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
>
> > I think esr is emphasizing (!) that in a structural-markup
> > language the tags can have no typographic meaning whatsoever.
>
> Correct. What Anton was considering unfair is the implication
> that troff only does presentational markup
Which
On Thu, 3 May 2012 08:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Dorai Sitaram wrote:
> While it may be possible to mimic the tags of structural markup in a
> presentation-markup language, there is power in completely and firmly
> separating the two aspects: you can then independently develop the
> two aspects; indeed th
Tadziu Hoffmann :
> > I think esr is emphasizing (!) that in a structural-markup
> > language the tags can have no typographic meaning whatsoever.
>
> Correct. What Anton was considering unfair is the implication
> that troff only does presentational markup, while it is entirely
> possible to u
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:57:27PM -0400, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> > > I think esr is emphasizing (!) that in a structural-markup
> > > language the tags can have no typographic meaning whatsoever.
> >
> > Correct. What Anton was considering unfair is the implication
> > that troff only does pr
To go back to Anton's original posting, where he quoted
Eric Raymond:
As an example: In a presentation-markup lan-
guage, if you want to emphasize a word, you
might instruct the formatter to set it in
boldface. In troff(1) this would look like
so:
All your base
Hi, Eric,
Nice to know that you're still monitoring this list...
I was involved in converting some documents from a home-grown
version of eroff/mm to Docbook back before Eric's tools were available
and I agree that there is a LOT more to it than just .EMPH. For example,
strings were identified as
On 05/03/2012 04:57 PM, Meg McRoberts wrote:
Hi, Eric,
Nice to know that you're still monitoring this list...
I was involved in converting some documents from a home-grown
version of eroff/mm to Docbook back before Eric's tools were available
and I agree that there is a LOT more to it than just
That brings back memories of 1989 when I battled HP's Unix labs. The
>HP-UX reference was called "the brick" due to size and density, and I
>became known as "the bricktator" thanks to my monarchical management
>style. But I forced it through, and commands were in COURIER, not bold,
>and variab
On 05/03/2012 05:41 PM, Meg McRoberts wrote:
That brings back memories of 1989 when I battled HP's Unix labs. The
HP-UX reference was called "the brick" due to size and density, and I
became known as "the bricktator" thanks to my monarchical management
style. But I forced it thro
18 matches
Mail list logo
