Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]> writes: > For this reason grohtml is still tagged as `beta code'. > > Additionally, the mdoc package has, contrary to ms or man, not been > prepared for proper grohtml support yet. On the other hand, there are > still some bugs directly in grohtml.
> > In case you are interested in the latter, it would be of great help if > you can construct minimal documents which exhibit erroneous behaviour, > and submit them as individual bug reports to Savannah so that at least > the problems get collected at a central place. Hi, this would be extremely useful. The smaller the better, I might have some time this summer to re-examine these pending bugs. I think a good plan would be to introduce a dejagnu regression test for groff (grohtml) - I have an old patch which would be a starting point http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2004-10/msg00006.html even if all of it requires rewriting. At least when this is done developers can perform sanity checks without having to eyeball a number of files. The regression tests iirc checked that tags were emitted on the correct vertical alignment (ie the ditroff intermediate tags were correct). The actual post-grohtml would probably need eyeballing - although it would be possible to script some of this as well. But the ditroff tag generation is the hardest to get correct. regards, Gaius > Submitting patches of course is highly welcomed too (for example, > to check the HTML stuff in `s.tmac' or `an-old.tmac' and do > something similar in `doc.tmac' and its related files). > > > Werner _______________________________________________ bug-groff mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-groff
