Re: [Groff] Typesetting Markup Language (TML) - a Superset of Groff

[Yves Cloutier]

I forgot to add:

I also like markdown and friends.  In fact my first attempt was a Pandoc
Pluggin that would convert Markdown to groff. I think it's still no my git.

The problem it didn't address was styling my document or other formatting
options for a book I was working on. Markdown and friends are great for
providing a certain level of document structure, however they don't - to my
knowledge - provide any facility for specifying document or text styling or
more complicated document structure. For example:

   - numbered headings vs unnumbered?
   - font family?
   - Drop caps?
   - list numbering styles (ex: 1) (1) 1. a. A) III. etc)

TML provides these facilities and much more (I hope!) that are lacking in
other markups.

yc


On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso <address@hidden>
wrote:

> Ralph Corderoy <address@hidden> wrote:
>  |> The project on github: https://github.com/cloutiy/tml
>  |> Extensive documentation on its wiki:
> https://github.com/cloutiy/tml/wiki
>  |
>  |Interesting, and I'll look more when I've time.
>  |
>  |> Inline formatting has a nice clean syntax that resembles HTML, but
>  |> much cleaner - you just need 1 closing tag.
>  |...
>  |> Here is some <b<bold text>.
>  |> Here is some <i<italic text>.
>  |> Here is some <smallcaps<small cap text>.
>  |...
>  |> Here is <bold, size +2<bold and larger text>
>  |
>  |I struggle to read the <b<bold text> syntax though, and I suspect enough
>  |non-programmers have been exposed to HTML-like syntax in forum software,
>  |etc., that they to are used to <> balancing.  Editors may also provide
>  |"matching bracket" functionality for <>, as with [], etc.  Were syntaxes
>  |like
>  |
>  |    Here is some <b:bold text>.
>  |    Here is some <i:italic text>.
>  |    Here is some <smallcaps:small cap text>.
>  |    Here is <bold, size +2:bold and larger text>
>  |
>  |considered, with the first colon marking the separation?
>  |
>  |    <b:Bold and <i:bold-italic>> text.
>
> Or plain SGML that i think could use <tagname/almost any text you
> like/.  I think plain SGML is still an interesting language, much
> better than what XML made of it.  And then i, for one, don't want
> yet another so-called plain text markup language.  There is rst,
> asciidoc, markdown, whatever, a bit more taggy is perl's POD and
> many more.  I think pimping one of those as a base is more likely
> to be useful.  I had a time when i liked rst, but pimping POD is
> possibly nicer given how rst looks if you start real work with
> progamming stuff etc.  And then a nicely reduced ROFF (TeX, too)
> set of macros does look very clean!  If it only could act as
> a base for other document formats...
>
> Ciao, and have a nice weekend!
>
> --steffen
>