Re: [Groff] doclifter on groffer.man

[groff-bernd . warken-72]

> Von: address@hidden
> > Bernd Warken <address@hidden>:
> > `doclifter' should be fixed to handle this correctly.  I cannot
> > detect any necessity for a "safe" list.  I will not fall back to the
> > old scheme of 2 letter variable names.
> 
> I opened this discussion because, for just eight pages out of over 13,000,
> adding the additional complexity to handle these additional features
> seems unwarranted.

That's not the fault of groff, but you are not willing to accept the standard.

> Gunnar Ritter then pointed out that these features break other programs
> besides doclifter.  XMan, Rosetta, TkMan -- all programs other than 
> groff's own rendering engine blow higher than up on this hackery.  Even
> troff classic breaks.

`groff' is the standard; it is available on all operating systems and it is 
free.
So there should not be a problem to use it.  If some programmers want to
cook their own soups they are forced to take over the standard.

> I alreadty support quite a few groff extensions in my code.  Improving
> doclifter the rest of the way to handle your macros is something I
> could be persuaded to do if that were sufficient to solve the problems
> with the macros.  
> 
> Unfortunately, it is not.  What you are really doing with them is
> making your man sources un-renderable by *anything* but groff.
> 
> That is the real bug here, and that's what needs to be fixed.

It's not a bug, it's part of the standard.  `grohtml'  is able to transform all
man pages indluding your enemies to a beautiful html output.  So this
should also be possible for XML.

How about integrating `doclifter' into `groff' as generater for `docbook'
output?  `groff -Tdocbook' would be very nice.

If you do not want to integrate the `groff' standard you have to rename
your program to `classicaldoclifter'.

Bernd Warken