Re: [Groff] inconsistent synopsis for .MAILTO

[Werner LEMBERG]

> Frankly, you can call the opening macro what you like and the
> corresponding closing macro whetever else you like; groff will
> cope. As Ralph point out, there is a long- standing ".TAGS" ...
> ".TAGE" groff convention (by no means fully adhered to, by the way
> -- compare ".B1" and ".B2" to begin and end boxed text). We could
> also have the HTML-type convention ".<TAG>" .... ".</TAG>" or ".TAG"
> .... "./TAG", which has the advantage of conforming to an already
> widely used convention.

I like .TAG and ./TAG!  So maybe we can implement the following:

   .TAG with arguments is a one-line macro.

   .TAG without arguments is a multi-line macro, closed by ./TAG;
   parameters can be enforced with the use of input traps -- now that
   .itc is available, even complicated macro calls should be rather
   easy to implement and use.


    Werner