Re: [Groff] grohtml peculiarities

[Gaius Mulley]

Gaius wrote:

>> In grohtml the `.in' request generates a special indicating that a
>> change of indent has occurred (this is also placed into the
>> diversion).  The diversion is emitted, say at point (c), which
>> causes a problem as the output from troff will tell grohtml that an
>> `.in' from (d)

Werner writes:

> This is problematic.  After ending a diversion, you have a list of
> formatted glyphs, together with fixed horizontal and vertical
> spacings, nothing more (well, some internal nodes are added but this
> is not of importance here).  While executing the diversion, the
> formatted text will use the current indentation and line length
> values, regardless of the values active during the creation of the
> diversion.  As you all know, this sometimes leads to very surprising
> results since the space between words is no longer stretchable.

> A diversion is a low-level operation in groff, creating output
> immediately.  Since this isn't suited for grohtml, I suggest to ignore
> any typesetting commands except high-level markup like font changes
> while defining a diversion.

> With other words, no special html tags should be added normally while
> a diversion is active.  Most groff macro packages use environments to
> ensure that the output of diversions use exactly the same layout
> parameters which were active during the diversion's definition --
> grohtml must simply rely on a sensible macro package which ensures
> proper use of diversions.

yes I think this would be worth a try. It certainly sounds as if it
will fix this problem. It will be interesting to see whether it 
also works with -ms as the .AB, AE also use diversions.

Gaius