[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Groff] new round of html bugs
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
[Groff] new round of html bugs |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:35:00 +0200 (CEST) |
After a few months I'm again examining the pic.html as produced with
`make' in the `doc' subdirectory. I found a couple of bugs (some of
them I've already reported, though).
1. The first image (figure 3-1) is still cropped too much at the
bottom. It's even worse for figure 3-5.
2. The verbatim output directly below the image (showing a .PS
... .PE environment) is incorrect. All backslashes are gone.
This is something serious.
3. Figure 10-4 appears as a black square instead of two boxes
connected with two arrows. Was has happened here? My pnmtopng
identifies as
pnmtopng: Version: Netpbm 1 March 1994
pnmtopng: Compiled Sat Aug 19 13:53:38 EST 1995 by user "root"
pnmtopng: BSD defined
pnmtopng: PBMPLUS_RAWBITS defined
pnmtopng: RGB_DB="/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/rgb"
pnmtopng: LIBTIFF defined
[This is weird anyway -- there was no PNG format defined in 1994.]
It seems that we have to add a remark to which version of netpbm
is needed...
4. Figure 10-6 is an example where the top is cropped too much.
5. At the begin of section 14 there is a formatting problem:
The code
The syntax is
.DS
.CW
\fBdefine\fP \fIname\fP \fB{\fP \fIreplacement text \fB}\fP
.R
.DE
is translated to
<p>The syntax is</p>
<pre>
<b> define</b> <i>name</i> <b>{</b> <i>replacement text</i> <b>}
</b></pre>
At least with my browser (Netscape 4.73 on Linux), everything is
bold, and nothing is in italics. What results do you get? Do
font changes really work in <pre> ... </pre>?
6. At the beginning of section 15.1 there is another serious error:
The string
copy filename
becomes
copy
filename
The font `CW' is handled incorrectly (similary to 5.).
7. Below figure 16-1, the .DS/.DE environment isn't handled
correctly. Again, there is an incorrect <pre> ... </pre>,
possibly paired with an incorrect recognition of `\' at the end
of line.
8. At the beginning of section 18, `\e' isn't printed at all.
Perhaps related to 2.?
9. A fundamental question: Shall grohtml set the `t' or `n' flag?
For example, the macro \*(tx defined in pic.ms as
.ie t .ds tx T\h'-.1667m'\v'.224m'E\v'-.224m'\h'-.125m'X
.el .ds tx TeX
gives `TEX' if processed with grohtml, but without lowering the
`E' character, which is bad...
Besides this, the results looks really nice!
Werner
- [Groff] new round of html bugs,
Werner LEMBERG <=