[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: groff/-mandoc replacement
On Sun Mar 01 2009 at 22:07:57 +0100, Kristaps DÅonsons wrote:
> >We have a few man pages with tables, and while I'm not too worried about
> >them, adding very simple tbl support might be worthwhile. See queue(3)
> >for an example.
> Antti, I'm running into the same issue elsewhere -- tbl, that is. But
> what's the advantage, in terms of manuals already existing in base, of
> perpetuating tbl versus "Bl -column"? Would it not be simpler to
> re-write these existing sections to use columns? Apparently, older
> groffs had a two- or three-column limit. This isn't the case with mdoc(3).
> In fact, the mdoc(3) "-column" support, being tested in my local copy,
> has a superset of groff's functionality: it lets full macro "lines",
> like `Qq', exist in each column.
Oh, if you can do it in mdoc, great!
> >We also have a few non-mdoc documents in src. Again, I am not too
> >worried about these and we could move them to pkgsrc if we rip out groff.
> Are new base manuals being written in non-mdoc? Old ones can be pretty
> easily re-written.
Not manuals, but stuff e.g. in share/doc that use ms/me.
Note that this affects only the "base without groff" argument, not mdocml
> groff for mdoc only. I'm fond of mdoc because it annotates the meaning
> of macro arguments instead of merely their style (like the other macro
> packages). The mdocml mdoc(3) "intermediate form", unlike groff's,
> encodes this information, which allows for all sorts of useful things:
> - quickly building an index of all functions in .3 manuals
> - ...executable names
> - ...etc.
> This is already possible, if one wants to build such a frontend for mdoc(3).
Oh that's a cool option!
Thinking out loud: I wonder if it would be possible to use an asciified
version of your intermediate form directly as the basis for a new mdoc
Main Index |
Thread Index |