Re: [Groff] groff as a wiki langauge?

[Zhang Weiwu]

Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> It's not clear to me why you get such bad formatting results. 
Partly because it's difficult to strip away the non wiki content from
the web page (navigation bar, advertisement on the corner, "feed back"
input textarea);
Partly because there is no way to specify when this gets printed, how
the page header, footer look like. e.g. it's not possible to have a
front page with only title of document and author, date, centered in the
page. I have to copy content from wiki into OpenOffice and format it there.
> IMHO,
> it's not a problem of the syntax (neither groff nor TeX do much more)
> but rather a bad conversion from Wiki syntax to the printer output.
>   
The convention I used "tikiwiki" only have a few "syntax" for different
formats, I think less than a dozen. Compare to what ms package offers,
it was just too few. However there is a strong need of using wiki for
project document because in an agile development process the software
document can be changed anytime by anyone. and frequently a well
formated version is needed for print-output for commercial releases. Can
we have roff's richness in formatting and layout text on paper,
providing high quality print output for the product delivery, while
provide high flexibility and co-operation of wiki, without forcing
document writers (often not developers) to use a version control
software and collaborate by committing instead of just work on the web
pages?

I know right-to-left language is not supported. Chinese neither, for the
line-break issue. By the way, why being old is a reason to being
in-active for new feature requirements (e.g. right-to-left)?