I would just say I agree with any SGML-kind implementation manpage format

On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, David Brownlee wrote:

> 	This contains both signal and noise, noise prefixed by '( '
> 
> 	( I'd like to second this, and I'm only sorry I wasn't
> 	( online to comment earlier.
> 
> 	( I am very disappointed by the inappropriately agressive
> 	( replies that seemed to be based on the most cursory glance
> 	( at the original post.
> 
> 	I like manpages, but I agree there are a couple of obvious
> 	features missing compared to some other formats:
> 
> 	    -  Follow references to other documents
> 	    -  Jump to, or even see an index of sections
> 	    -  Sanely search for implemented commands or similar
> 	       (eg: Just try to lookup the 'complete' syntax in tcsh(1))
> 
> 	Switching the man page source format to html would address some of
> 	those issues, at a tradeoff many people are not willing to make.
> 
> 	( It is unfortunate that some of them seem unable to express
> 	( their feelings in a rational manner, and interesting to note
> 	( that some of the same set may have in the past expressed
> 	( amusement at similar behaviour on linux lists..
> 
> 	Alternative options include:
> 
> 	a) Having an easy way, possibly even a package, to convert all the
> 	   manpages on an existing system to html. I personally would set
> 	   this up on some of my servers for others here. Documenting the
> 	   .Xr macro would be a good addition to this.
> 
> 	b) Provide all manpages in 'text' and 'html' output by default.
> 
> 	c) Allowing new manpages to be written in DocBook or some other
> 	   'real' document language.
> 
> 	d) Produce a slightly modified nroff output which could be
> 	   processed by a slightly modified more to allow following
> 	   of references to other docs, and jumping to index sections.
> 
> 	I would love to see a) - it helps those who want to read in html,
> 	without annoying those who prefer to write in mdoc.
> 
>                 David/absolute
> 			       -- www.netbsd.org: A pmap for every occasion --
> 
> 
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Mike Pelley wrote:
> 
> > You guys sure showed him.  He'll think twice before his next post.
> > 
> > People who suggest that Mike implied X in his original post appear not to have read the original message, part of which is quoted below.
> > 
> > > I propose junking man pages as we know them, keeping all documentation
> > > in html, and making the man command essentially a stripped-down lynx (or
> > > other specialized text-based browser).
> > 
> > It seems quite clear to me.
> > 
> > I prefer man pages to html myself, but I think exploring the options is worthwhile.  The abuse, however, seems unnecessary and counterproductive.
> > 
> > Mike.
> > 
> 
> 
>