Re: Readability of troff documents (Was: [Groff] Bug in gxditview)

[Patrik Schindler]

At 8:41 Uhr +0300 23.05.2003, Giorgos Magos wrote:

>Ideally the only troff codes I'd like to see in a document are
>those needed for logical formatting, ie the macros (.PP, .H1, etc).

This is fine as long as one runs his documents only through groff. On the other 
hand, Groff today has many extensions to the original troff which makes it 
impossible to simply run groff code through an original troff anyways.

I personally prefer the compatibility way. Why should one call it groff in 5 
years when it then looks like TeX?

Troff is hard to read since ages but it may be better to read when wisely 
formatted. I personally take the sed-way not only for \(em but also for 
ligatures like \(fl and stuff. So it won't bother me and I'd prefer to let it 
alone.

Last, would you really tell that a non computer person nowadays uses troff in 
any way? These even avoid LaTeX either (to my knowledge) and use their 
favourite GUI and mouse appliction to create their docs.

Just my ¤.02.
-- 
:wq! PoC