Re: [Groff] more html macros needed

[Werner LEMBERG]

> Let me offer a dissenting opinion.  To my mind, and to that of many
> others, one of the chief advantages of [gt]roff over TeX and LaTeX
> is that it is much less wordy.  I don't believe that we should be
> trying to emulate the LaTeX syntax.  Rather we should try, when
> possible, to follow the original paradigm of having a request remain
> active until the next paragraph (e.g. until the next, possibly
> implicit, .RT in the ms macros).

But this not always the right thing.  [I dare to say that in most
cases it is not the right thing, but this is my personal opinion.]
For example, mdoc offers for all quoting macros three forms.  One for
a line, and two to open and close a quotation.  Example: .Aq, .Ao, and
.Ac -- so Bernd's idea is not far away from what existing groff macros
already provide.  I have similar things in mind: one line-oriented
form, and a starting/closing pair in case the former doesn't work.

> As I said before, if you want LaTeX (or its syntax) you know where
> to find it.

This is something completely different.  I talked about the concept
and not the syntax.


    Werner