Re: [Groff] It is time to modernise "groff"

[Gour]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 13:33:45 -0500
Blake McBride <address@hidden> wrote:

> First, I love troff.  In my 35+ years in the software industry, I've
> never seen a better balance between simplicity, effectiveness, and
> power with respect to producing fine documents.    

Today when browsing archives of this list I found out that my interest for
groof is from 2004, but, somehow, never had enough time to dive into it, but
now, after trying many things, my ineterest has been kindled again due to, as
you wrote, "balance between power & simplicity".

> Enhancing troff without breaking old documents is a great thing - and
> much of that has been accomplished with groff.  Continuing that trend
> is good.   

Let me say that the reason to loook (again) at groff was the fact that Pandoc
got support for creating groff output as stated in its release notes:

"New output format ms (groff ms). Complete support, including tables, math,
syntax highlighting, and PDF bookmarks. The writer uses texmath’s new eqn
writer to convert math to eqn format, so a ms file produced with this writer
should be processed with groff -ms -e if it contains math."

but I'm still not clear whether it means one can use mom package as well?

I plan to mostly use Emcas' org-mode as source markup for *all my writings* and
then export according to the needs, so having support in Pandoc is cool.

> If you want to create a new tool that takes what was learned
> from troff and TeX, and produce a better power / simplicity tool - go
> for it!  

+1


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 
Abandoning all attachment to the results of his activities,
ever satisfied and independent, he performs no fruitive action,
although engaged in all kinds of undertakings.