(Been out of pocket for a while… the grandson’s soccer season has begun, and it’s looking great to begin with. I think this is the best team he’s ever had in front of him; he’s the goalie. But I digress…)
G. Branden Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > It might be interesting to someday add a gromarkdown(1) output driver > for groff. For now, I'll await expression of demand. :) That would solve a lot of problems! If the output is solid, you could completly ditch grohtml(1) because Markdown is a textual version of HTML[1] (like AsciiDoc is a textual version of DocBook). If you aim for CommonMark—or Pandoc’s Markdown, which might be the closest implementation so far—it would potentially open groff not only to the non-printing world (i.e. the web) but to much more. For example, if you’re willing to set up a template, Pandoc can transform an MS-Weird document to -ms. Right now, Pandoc treats groff formats as a “roach hotel” — other formats come in, but they don’t come out. If groff itself can handle the other direction, then single-sourcing becomes a reality.[2] So if by “expression of demand” you mean “someone is willing to do testing and contribute patches according to his ability” I’m expressing! — Larry [1] The DITA Open Toolkit (a/k/a DITA-OT) has a Markdown output, and can uplift Markdown into DITA-XML. It can also treat topics written in Markdown as co-equal to XML topics… now wouldn’t that be a fun thing to do in *roff? :D [2] Imagine being able to pull an MS-Weird doc into Markdown, splitting it into topics for a website and producing a nicely-typeset PDF. A gromarkdown(1) post-processor would make that possible.
