groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Groff] OTF in Groff or -mom in Heitrloom troff...


From: Joerg van den Hoff
Subject: Re: [Groff] OTF in Groff or -mom in Heitrloom troff...
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:27:22 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:02:37PM +0100, Gunnar Ritter wrote:
> "Michael Kerpan" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > After joining this board (and being mostly a lurker), I've been clued
> > in to the awesome -mom macro package. I'd like to use it with my
> > extensive collection of OTF fonts, but it seems like groff's font
> > support rather lags behind that of Heirloom troff... Are there any
> > plans to add "modern" font handling and format support a la "htroff"
> > to groff or -mom to "htroff" or am I stuck at the moment...
> 
> Most of -mom works with Heirloom troff in groff compatibility
> mode. Just put it into your TROFFMACS directory with om.tmac
> as file name, and use troff -mg -mom | dpost.
> 
> Gunnar
> 
> 

not  actually  belonging  in this thread, but in this way at
least `heirloom troff' related things keep together  on  the
groff list :-).

I'd  like  to report a problem (as I see it) with heirloom's
`eqn'.

what  I  really  would  think  wrong  behaviour is seen with
diacritical marks:

something  like 

.EQ
lpile {
K hat = y
above
K dot = x
}
.EN

shows  that  the "hat" is sort of right aligned above the K,
not centered as the dot is in the ps  output.  moreover  the
vertical distance above the K seems different for both marks
(probably they both are "top aligned" in this direction?).

the same looks much saner with groff's `eqn' (well one could
argue with respect to the dot, but not w.r.t. the hat).

what's  more:  the  default  spacing used by `eqn' (i.e. the
spacing used without introducing explicit white space,  e.g.
with  the  `^'  command) is markedly different between groff
and "htroff"    eqn.  in  htroff  there  seems  actually  no
additional  white  space  whatever  in  the above equations,
e.g.. this simply does not look right. I confess not  having
thoroughly   looked   whether   this  spacing  is  somewhere
adjustable via registers (maybe  it  is),  but  if  so,  the
default value at least is not a good one.

and   unfortenuately   both   eqn   preprocessors   are  not
interchangable. another question would be: could the  output
be  made  compatible  (it  should  be, if `groff' did not do
groff-specific things in the troff commands emitted by  eqn,
right?)

any comments?

joerg


PS:  this  should  be said by and then: thank you werner and
gunnar  for  keeping   troff   alive   in   it's   different
incarnations!




reply via email to

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