Re: [Groff] groff_ms.man

[Ted Harding]

On 23-Jan-02 P. Alejandro Lopez-Valencia wrote:
> And the ellipsis proposed by Werner Lemberg should
> be the one supplied.
> 
> The reasoning behind this idea is that it is compatible
> both with the high end devices (ps, lj4, dvi) as well
> as with all text devices, therefore it can be used for
> man pages that usually get written in English (if
> written at all).

A few comments here.

1. Each device can provide its own implementation of
   ellipsis, or anything else, and this can be referred
   to in groff in a device-dependent way. The macro files
   tmac.ps, tmac.dvi, tmac.X, tmac.lj4, tmac.latin1,
   tmac.tty, etc. already do this more or less extensively.
   I don't think "device compatibility" is an argument
   here, though I can see the point of a default for
   devices which don't have a tmac.<dev> file, nor a
   built-in ellipsis.

   Nor do I particularly mind what the entity is
   called -- \[ell], \(el or whatever -- though I might
   well rename it for my own convenience.

2. For some time recently I have formed an increasing
   perception that the formatting of man pages is
   becoming an unduly dominant influence on groff.

   I have no quarrel with man pages (indeed, most of
   you are probably aware that I prefer man to info).
   And I have no quarrel with using groff to format
   them.

   However, I do dislike the uneasy feeling that groff
   may become unduly oriented towards the man page.

   Formatting man pages was not the original primary
   purpose of troff (though later for a while it may
   have been), nor has it been for most of the history
   of troff and groff, despite the fact that most
   users of Linux (certainly) and many of Unix (probably)
   apparently believe that this is its sole purpose.

   What is specifically needed for formatting man pages
   should be wrapped up in tmac.an and associated files.
   Likewise also what is specifically needed for any
   other narrow purpose.

   Groff itself should be general-purpose typesetting
   software, able to be specialised for special purposes
   as required.

   I do not agree with Alejandro's implied argument
   above ("therefore it can be used for man pages")
   that this purpose justifies setting a particular
   definition as a default, when for some devices
   there is a better, built-in one.

3. If by "the ellipsis proposed by Werner Lemberg should
   be the one supplied" you mean the suggestion

      .char \[...] .\|.\|.

   then this is OK for typewriter-like devices, since
   \| has no effect (but then the definition is unnecessary
   since it is equivalent to "..."). It is not needed for
   PS (and indeed produces a different effect from \(el),
   nor for dvi; I don't know about lj4, since I can't test it,
   and there's no "\(el" in font TR for lj4, nor in tmac.lj4
   (but nothing prevents defining one in the tmac.lj4 file).
   And so on.

In short, I am wondering what the argument is about.

Where there is an available ellipsis in the device, then
let it be used unless it is unsuitable for a particular
purpose (in which case define something that is). If it
is not available, then let it be defined in the device
specific tmac.<dev> file.

The proposal to put such a definition in the troffrc file
makes it the default for all devices unless over-ridden
in the tmac.dev file; as I argue above, this is the
wrong way round in my opinion.

Nor do I agree that "It's a rather useless glyph IMHO"
[Werner]; I use it extensively ... !

Best wishes to all,
Ted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 167 1972
Date: 23-Jan-02                                       Time: 23:47:05
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------