Re: [Groff] The case against the case against .EX/.EE & .DS/.DE

[Gunnar Ritter]

"Eric S. Raymond" <address@hidden> wrote:

> > An examination of the CSRG archives shows that .Ds had been
> > defined in -mdoc as a "filled block display" in 4.3BSD-Reno,
> > but was deleted with 4.4BSD.
> > 
> > Which DocBook tag should correspond to .DS?
>
> A *filled* block display?

Not really. I have misread the source code of mdoc.samples.7.
The definition of .Ds ends with .nf. The filled display is .Df.

> I have been translating it as an
> unfilled block, with a <literallayout> tag -- that's what the examples
> in my corpus seem to want, and the meaning it has in mm.  It differs
> from .EX/.EE only in that it doesn't force the font to CW.

Then I do not understand why you deem it necessary, given that
.EX is introduced. A plain .nf would just do the same?

        Gunnar