Re: (off topic?) Docbook? Re: manlint?

[Jan Stary]

On Oct 07 14:58:31, jklowden@schemamania.org wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 18:48:27 +0200
> Jan Stary <hans@stare.cz> wrote:
> 
> > In the mdoc source, it's .Sh DESCRIPTION; that's it.
> > if Sh sections get turned into h1's (which is a decision in itself),
> > all this does is it gives these h1's a class="Sh" and an id.
> > 
> > That is the simplest and most obvious thing to do;
> > it is up to the presentation author to prescribe a style
> > to h1's of class Sh (or refer to a specific one by its id).
> 
> What tool does that, btw?  

http://mandoc.bsd.lv/

> We're starting from an mdoc document, right?

In my example, yes.

> Therefore every h1 is generated from Sh,

I'm not sure where the mapping from mdoc macros
to html elements is described (beside the code),
but Ingo surely will know.

> so every h1 is <h1 class="Sh">.  What, then, is the
> point of the class, if the CSS selectors
> 
>       h1
> and
>       h1.Sh
> 
> always refer to the same elements? 
> 
> Also: how does one generate h2-h6?  
> 
> > For example, in th eabove page, the list of options
> > is <dl class="Bl-tag">.
> 
> You might be able to convince me that mdoc->HTML is mostly a solved
> problem.  I would point out that, because there's no ID there,
> individual lists can't be uniquely styled.  
> 
> > > I would like to produce HTML5 from groff macros (all of them,
> > > ideally), with all style choices made with CSS.
> > 
> > That's "inventing new syntax" in my book; in an insane way, I might
> > add.
> 
> I honestly don't understand your objection.  Is the idea too
> complicated, too specialized, or doomed to fail because "you can't get
> there from here"?  
> 
> Ingo accused me of inventing "out of thin air".  I've been working
> in this space for 2 decades.  I've used LaTex, SGML, texinfo, groff, and
> HTML extensively, surely for hundreds of hours each, maybe thousands.
> If that's "thin air", what would form a solid foundation?  

I can't speak for Ingo, but I don't think the "thin air"
was meant as an insult to your expertise.

        Jan