Re: [Groff] groff as a backend

[Larry Kollar]

Meg McRoberts wrote:

> Here's the tough question for everyone: what are the
> advantages of preserving/ enhancing groff over XML/
> DocBook, which does have docs stored in text format and
> editable through vi/emacs but also has WYSYWYG editors
> available?  The structured nature of XML/DocBook can be
> a bit annoying (you have to mark the beginning and end
> of a paragraph or section, for example, rather than just
> the start).

There are several advantages to using groff over DocBook. I
think I've hinted at them before on the list, or maybe it
was some other list. It all runs together after a while. :-P

First, if you're writing directly in markup, *roff is easier
to deal with. Using any kind of markup, you have to learn
the tags. Most macro packages provide a few dozen tags at
most (60, give or take a few, for -ms) while DocBook has
over 400 -- even discounting rarely-used (or unused) tags,
DocBook requires more effort to learn. Then there's the
verbosity factor; it's a lot easier to type .LI (or .IP)
than <listitem> and </listitem> (you need both for XML).
There are XML editor modes in emacs and Vim that handle
tag completion, but you'll still have to type a lot more
markup in XML than you would for *roff. That translates
to productivity, especially when writing new content. Once
you memorize the handful of *roff tags you use regularly,
you can type them almost without thinking about them.
Pausing to type longer DocBook (or TeX) tags can interrupt
your train of thought.

Second, *roff does a better job than XML (using XSL:FO
formatters) of producing PS/PDF output, especially if you
limit yourself to Free software. On balance, XML-based
systems do better generating HTML. Both sides are improving
output quality. However, it is far easier to set up *roff
to get the format you want -- XSL:FO is very complex and
unwieldy.

The next is more WYSIWYG than XML, but it probably applies
to many graphical XML editors. When you are producing
several output formats from the same source, which "G" are
you "S"ing? Displaying the document the way it should look
in one output format unconsciously encourages the writer to
concentrate on how the document looks in that format, to the
exclusion of other formats. Programs like LyX, that use
visual cues to indicate tag types but do not attempt to
mimic a final output, are more suitable for multiple output
formats.

This one ran a little long, sorry about that.

--
Larry Kollar   k  o  l  l  a  r  @  a  l  l  t  e  l  .  n  e  t
Unix Text Processing: "UTP Revival"
http://home.alltel.net/kollar/utp/