groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] Simplifying groff documentation


From: Werner LEMBERG
Subject: Re: [Groff] Simplifying groff documentation
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:06:31 +0100 (CET)

> Having grappled with troff markup weirdness on 13,000 pages, and
> written an interpreter for a a substantial part of troff within
> doclifter, one of the things I am well equipped by experience to do
> is describe a "safe troff" subset that we should recommend man-page
> writers adhere to.

Very interesting.

> I think it might not be a bad idea for troff to throw warnings when
> a man page uses a troff request outside the safe set.  Note that I 
> am *not* recommending this measure for troff documents other than
> man pages.

Hmm.  This is doable by redefining the requests, but it means an
update to the man macros each time I add something new.

> Here is the safe set:
> 
> .br .nl .sp .bp .ft .fi .nf .ul .cu .tm .so .ds .as .rm
> .rn .em .am .nr .rr .ig .pm .cc .c2 .ab .do 

Thanks.  However, you haven't told us which escapes are `safe'.

> The really big evil issue is .if/.ie/.el; I handle many cases of
> these correctly, but the logic to get evaluation of conditionals
> right is so complex and the edge cases so nasty that these cannot in
> general be in the safe set.

Well, conditionals can't be avoided (see my other mail), I think, so I
wonder whether you can go into details which evaluation cases cause
problems.


    Werner




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]