[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Groff] summary of poll: which macro packages are in common use / and wh
From: |
Klaus Robert Suetterlin |
Subject: |
[Groff] summary of poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why. |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:01:20 +0200 |
Thanks to all who found the time to participate in the poll.
I'd like to sum up my impressions so far, and call the poll closed:
Everyone seems to stick with two macro packages.
Everyone states that macro packages neither protect from nor prevent
direct groff use.
The package to use is basically a question of familiarity only.
Packages fall (IMHO) in three categories: groff wrapper (me),
structured document (mm) and typesetter (mom, ms + modifications,
selfmade).
Most of the replies I recieved (privately and through the list)
named ms as the package of choice. Three reasons were given: ms
is simple and easily extendable, it works with www, the user would
write custom macros to fulfill her typesetting needs.
Next was mm. Mainly by people using it for 20+ years, just because
that was sold with AT&T UNIX. One mentioned the use of gpresent.
One mentioned transition to Lyx(Latex) in progress.
Finally mom and the one-of-a-kind tmac.diss were proposed by their
authors. And me was mentioned once by a user who especially liked
handling of section headings in page titles.
All macro packages, as well as fully roll your own seem sufficient
to solve the task I specified (format report, article, book style
material) and (unlike with TeX) all of the different aproaches seem
to work out in the end.
For the work that I can move away from (La)TeX --- as Tadziu Hoffmann
mentioned, some (a lot of) journals want LaTeX source, which is ok
with me; unlike Word.doc --- mm seems the most promising to me.
Unlike the other packages it has a well formalised way to produce
an extendable set of standard documents. And I like extending upon
a framework much better than modifying / reshaping / editing a
custom fitted solution. I'd like www support with mm (or the other
way round :).
-- Robert S.
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., (continued)
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/24
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Keith Marshall, 2004/09/26
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/26
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/27
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/27
- Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/27
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Peter Schaffter, 2004/09/24
Re: <OK> [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., M Bianchi, 2004/09/24
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Tadziu Hoffmann, 2004/09/28
- [Groff] summary of poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why.,
Klaus Robert Suetterlin <=
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Larry Kollar, 2004/09/23
Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why., Keith MARSHALL, 2004/09/24