From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 8274b358 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 06:54:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4F3609B9B2; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 16:54:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D089478E; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 16:54:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8B9B39478E; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 16:54:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: from freefriends.org (freefriends.org [96.88.95.60]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A246293D23; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 16:54:26 +1000 (AEST) X-Envelope-From: arnold@skeeve.com Received: from freefriends.org (freefriends.org [96.88.95.60]) by freefriends.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x8F6sECf021188 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 15 Sep 2019 00:54:15 -0600 Received: (from arnold@localhost) by freefriends.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id x8F6sChG021185; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 00:54:12 -0600 From: arnold@skeeve.com Message-Id: <201909150654.x8F6sChG021185@freefriends.org> X-Authentication-Warning: frenzy.freefriends.org: arnold set sender to arnold@skeeve.com using -f Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 00:54:12 -0600 To: wkt@tuhs.org, ullbeking@andrewnesbit.org, tuhs@tuhs.org, lm@mcvoy.com References: <201909132024.x8DKObEP013266@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <463d5cc4-9bef-9ac3-a680-a5161d664dc1@aueb.gr> <20190913221345.GA16129@minnie.tuhs.org> <20190914020240.GO2046@mcvoy.com> <20190914024433.GA19193@minnie.tuhs.org> <2e84c4d0-5239-b223-856d-00aacf8d3028@andrewnesbit.org> In-Reply-To: <2e84c4d0-5239-b223-856d-00aacf8d3028@andrewnesbit.org> User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 7/5/10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [TUHS] earliest Unix roff X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" "U'll Be King of the Stars" wrote: > On 14/09/2019 03:44, Warren Toomey wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 07:02:40PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > >> Roff has some pretty sophisticated stuff (environments come to mind) that > >> I think 99.9% of the CS world doesn't understand > > This thread about *roff echoes something that I have been thinking about > recently. > > I've been wondering whether it is possible and worthwhile to use *roff > for complex technical documentation. I've always loved the aesthetic > that books produced using *roff have but there are other reasons too. > > As far as _markup_ is concerned we have DocBook for example. I am also > looking into this. (Also, I understand it's not a typesetting system.) Unless you use a WYSIWYG tool that generates DocBook, you should avoid it. Your fingers will kill you. I have written books in troff, DocBook and Texinfo. Texinfo is *by far* the superior markup language. Using Texinfo can generate DocBook which your publisher can turn into PDF. (I have done this, three times at least.) But working directly in DocBook just plain hurts. > Getting back to *roff, does anybody know if there is a (hopefully rich) > repository of macros, or any other resources, for my use case? (La)TeX > has this but I'd like to try something else. What do people think? The MM macros are the most capable of the standard sets that are out there, although possibly the MOM macros distributed with groff are even more so; I have not investigated fully. My own wish for the next genie in a lamp that I come across would be for a texinfo --> troff translator. Arnold