Re: [Groff] Introduction

[Meg McRoberts]

> I really would like to see the UTP improved, this is, all references
> to dead features/programs should be removed, and the new groff
> features should be incorporated as extensions.

Yes, I know we talked about that...  It's just a question of time.
There's a small number of you who really know the information...  Is
there some efficient way that we could share the work, with those of
us who are less knowlegeable picking up some of the scribal work?

> With other words, the groff_man(7) page and/or the corresponding
> section in groff.texinfo isn't as nice as it should be, right?

They are actually quite nice...  Perhaps we could add some command-line
and simple formatting-definition examples as a quick fix?  Is that the
way to go given everyones time constraints?

> Please discuss it here.  There have been plans to make groff emit XML
> too but...

Another one of those projects for when you have copious free time, right?
Perhaps when we are all retired and in our dotage, we can perfect groff?  ;-)

Actually, would there be a purpose for having groff emit XML over having
a filter that converts groff source to XML source?  In other words, is there
a purpose other than converting existing groff documents to XML?  The
difficulty with a filter, of course, is that XML has to have the beginning
and ending defined (say, for a section) whereas groff generally just defines
where something begins...  If the groff is really well-structured, it's probably
doable, but we all know that a lot of existing groff documents are not so
well-structured...