[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] Back to the future
From: |
Peter Schaffter |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] Back to the future |
Date: |
Thu, 6 Mar 2014 20:36:19 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> What we can do, though, is look for ways to (a) reduce the inventory of
> low-level troff requests a man-page renderer has to support, and (b)
> further enrich the semantic content so that renderers can do a better
> job without having to ve as complex as doclifter.
>
> No, I don't have anything specific in mind for (b) yet.
I suspect b) is going to be a thorny issue when it comes around.
Should be interesting. No denying the need; it'll all hang on the
implementation and how it impacts the writing of future manpages.
--
Peter Schaffter
http://www.schaffter.ca
Re: [Groff] Back to the future, Ingo Schwarze, 2014/03/06
- Re: [Groff] Back to the future, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/06
- Re: [Groff] Back to the future,
Peter Schaffter <=
- Re: [Groff] Back to the future, Mike Bianchi, 2014/03/07
- Re: [Groff] Back to the future, Anthony J. Bentley, 2014/03/07
- [Groff] mdoc considered harmful, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/07
- Re: [Groff] mdoc considered harmful, Kristaps Dzonsons, 2014/03/07
- Re: [Groff] mdoc considered harmful, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/07
- Re: [Groff] mdoc considered harmful, Ingo Schwarze, 2014/03/07
Re: [Groff] mdoc considered harmful, Ingo Schwarze, 2014/03/07
Re: [Groff] mdoc considered harmful, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/07
Re: [Groff] Back to the future, hohe72, 2014/03/05