Grégoire --
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015, Grégoire Babey wrote:
I wrote a second version for the introducion to groff in french.
I splitted general presentation https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff and
user tutorial https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff_tuto
The tutorial link gives Cette page n'existe pas
Le vendredi 16 janvier 2015 à 14:11 -0500, Peter Schaffter a écrit :
Grégoire --
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015, Grégoire Babey wrote:
I wrote a second version for the introducion to groff in french.
I splitted general presentation https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff and
user tutorial
Hi groffies,
thanks again for your feedbacks.
I wrote a second version for the introducion to groff in french.
I splitted general presentation https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff and
user tutorial https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff_tuto
Cheers
Grégoire
Hi Peter,
On Sun, Dec 14 2014 at 03:59:45 AM, Peter Schaffter pe...@schaffter.ca wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
Last thing before I commit my example, should I add an entry in
contrib/mom/ChangeLog?
Yes, please. Also update examples/README.txt in a similar style to
Hi Peter, Deri,
On Thu, Dec 11 2014 at 01:14:58 AM, Peter Schaffter pe...@schaffter.ca wrote:
The latest versions of the .mom files in examples/ should build
without this error. They do at my end, anyway. Update your
examples/ files, and let me know if the problem persists.
Sorry my
Bertrand --
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
- Added my example mon_premier_doc.mom in contrib/mom/examples and
modified contrib/mom/Makefile.sub accordingly (attached my diff
against master).
The result after building is:
- In build/contrib/mom/examples,
Peter,
On Sat, Dec 13 2014 at 05:59:11 PM, Peter Schaffter pe...@schaffter.ca wrote:
Bertrand --
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
[...]
- However, if I use
LC_ALL=C pdfmom -k
(LC_ALL=C is passed during the build of all mom examples) letter.pdf
is still correctly
Hi Peter,
On Thu, Nov 20 2014 at 02:48:55 AM, Peter Schaffter pe...@schaffter.ca wrote:
Bertrand --
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
So I've written a very simple example with Mom in French with a
step-by-step explanation on Ubuntu's French documentation page.
Could I commit
Bertrand --
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
I was about to commit my example, however I ran into a problem. When I
generate the pdf with pdfmom -k, I have a few can't translate character
code 233 to special character `'e' in transparent throughput errors but
the output is
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 00:43:18 Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
I was about to commit my example, however I ran into a problem. When I
generate the pdf with pdfmom -k, I have a few can't translate character
code 233 to special character `'e' in transparent throughput errors but
the output is fine.
Hi Peter,
On Thu, Nov 27 2014 at 05:51:54 AM, Peter Schaffter pe...@schaffter.ca wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
[...]
Also, I found out that in the mom examples, sometimes .PP is added
right after a HEADING, sometimes no. What is the general rule?
Not sure I
Bertrand --
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
If I have a paragraph starting just after a HEADING, and I use the
defaut behaviour (no indentation of the first paragraph), is it the same
thing to add or omit .PP before this first paragraph just after a
HEADING? Isn't .PP useless
Hi Peter,
On Thu, Nov 20 2014 at 02:48:55 AM, Peter Schaffter pe...@schaffter.ca wrote:
Bertrand --
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
So I've written a very simple example with Mom in French with a
step-by-step explanation on Ubuntu's French documentation page.
Could I commit
Bertrand --
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
Thanks for your remarks, I will correct my example and commit it. I
have a tendency to add a blank line before or after a HEADING for
clarity pupose in the source file, but this add an extra blank line. I
guess the recommandation
Hello Werner, Peter,
On Fri, Nov 07 2014 at 12:58:47 AM, Bertrand Garrigues
bertrand.garrig...@laposte.net wrote:
[...]
On Fri, Oct 24 2014 at 01:13:27 AM, GregExp gi...@gmx.ch wrote:
If you want, write it yourself (I suppose, you are french-speaking).
Just click on modifier on the right, and
So I've written a very simple example with Mom in French with a
step-by-step explanation on Ubuntu's French documentation page.
Could I commit it into contrib/mom/examples so that I could refer to
this file in the Ubuntu article?
Certainly. Having more examples from different users is
Bertrand --
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014, Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
So I've written a very simple example with Mom in French with a
step-by-step explanation on Ubuntu's French documentation page.
Could I commit it into contrib/mom/examples so that I could refer
to this file in the Ubuntu article?
Go
Hi Bertrand,
thank you for your answer. All two ideas are very good, and will make
the first paragraph more powerful.
I am afraid, I would not found the right words for it, because I'm not a
-mom user (not yet).
If you want, write it yourself (I suppose, you are french-speaking).
Just click
Hi groffies,
I wrote a short introduction in french, hoping to allow people who are
non-geeks to start using groff.
https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff
I am thankful for any feedback.
Gregoire Babey
Salut, Gregoire !
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014, GregExp wrote:
Hi groffies,
I wrote a short introduction in french, hoping to allow people who are
non-geeks to start using groff.
https://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/groff
I am thankful for any feedback.
Good work. It's always a tough job summarizing
Hallo Peter,
thanks a lot for your feedback. I think I can understand everything of
it and I will intege it to the french doc-page. It will take a few
days...
Generally, I wouldn't spend so much space on piping text at the
command line through to groff (your poem, e.g.). It's a lot to wade
Gregoire --
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014, GregExp wrote:
I could take the chapter 3.1 (terminal)and 3.2 (éditeur de texte en
console) after the chapter 3.3 (wich describe the normal using of
groff) of even at the very end, after chapter 7, as special using of
groff.
That's probably the best way to
Hi Gregoire,
Just read your introduction, good work!
On Tue, Oct 21 2014 at 11:01:40 PM, Peter Schaffter pe...@schaffter.ca wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014, GregExp wrote:
I could take the chapter 3.1 (terminal)and 3.2 (éditeur de texte en
console) after the chapter 3.3 (wich describe the normal
Hi groff list,
As I mentioned to Werner, I'm a professional software engineer, regular groff
user, and Unix tool enthusiast, and I'd like to contribute back to groff
development. I'm most interested in working on grohtml. I'd like to start
with something simple, like a bug fix or a
Robert --
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014, Robert Bocchino wrote:
As I mentioned to Werner, I'm a professional software engineer,
regular groff user, and Unix tool enthusiast, and I'd like to
contribute back to groff development.
Welcome!
--
Peter Schaffter
http://www.schaffter.ca
Werner Lemberg wrote, quoting Larry McVoy:
And as the primary whiner on this topic, I'll volunteer to do the
work to convert the existing texinfo docs to roff.
This is a great offer, but I wonder whether it makes sense to use
the time you are willing to invest in a better way.
. I won't
Robert Goulding wrote, quoting me:
It isn't difficult to conceive a groff macro package, which, when used
with `groff -Tascii -mroff2txi` for example, would spit out texinfo
source...
Why go to texinfo, rather than directly to info?
Because, at the time I was looking for a mechanism for
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 09:26:51PM +0100, Deri James wrote:
:
Groff is used
in the final stage to actually typeset the report, including a barcode on
each page to control the finishing at the printers, ...
Deri,
Are the barcodes generated by troff? (A special font?)
Or are they
On Monday 24 Oct 2005 21:40, you wrote:
Deri,
Are the barcodes generated by troff? (A special font?)
Or are they images that are generated, and then something like .PSPIC
glues them into the documents?
I generate the bar code directly, using interleaved 2of5. (GPLed font here:-
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 03:05:34AM +0200, Bernd Warken wrote:
Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
There's a good info viewer that is more like lynx than info.
It's called pinfo, and I use it all the time for reading info pages.
Another possibility is dwww. I have it on a Linux Debian system, I
And if you're not comfortable in emacs, you won't like info. [...]
Apparently, you haven't tried info for a longer time. The used keys
are now quite more familiar to other programs.
Werner
___
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
If a texinfo document appears as a labyrinth, it is badly written,
or rather, it has a bad structure.
This is a reasonable, even definitive, statement. But I have the
feeling that texinfo encourages such bad structure.
How do you get this impression? Of course, texinfo offers @section,
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Oh, this transition is, I think, a few years old :-) As mentioned in a
just written mail, info is today quite user friendly even for the
non-emacs people.
Yes, it has been a while since I tried info, but didn't think it
has been several years... my iBook (running OSX
. Documentation of GNU projects should be in texinfo format.
Err, there are lots of so-called GNU projects that aren't documented
in texinfo.
This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult to
write a texinfo file, and there are many benefits to do that.
Werner
This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult
to write a texinfo file, and there are many benefits to do that.
However, I have always regretted, even resented, GNU's transition
from man to info for basic reference.
I *fully* agree. It seems that you've got the wrong
On 22-Oct-05 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult
to write a texinfo file, and there are many benefits to do that.
However, I have always regretted, even resented, GNU's transition
from man to info for basic reference.
I *fully* agree.
(Ted Harding) wrote:
On 22-Oct-05 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
. Documentation of GNU projects should be in texinfo format.
Err, there are lots of so-called GNU projects that aren't documented
in texinfo.
This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult to
write a texinfo file,
Ted Harding wrote:
This is true but very unfortunate IMHO. It isn't very difficult to
write a texinfo file, and there are many benefits to do that.
I would like to dissent (partially) from this.
Me too.
However, I have always regretted, even resented, GNU's transition
from man to info
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 02:40:10PM +0100, Ted Harding wrote:
Basically the repertoire of keystrokes, which seem to resemble
EMACS ones; OK if you remember them, which I don't (apart from
SPACE and BS). However, to be fair, it does seem that 'info' has
become more transparent over the last year
Thanks for the pdf. I had a look at the previous version a while ago
but a China tour rudely interrupted my studies of it :-)
你講中文嗎?
Certainly I would like to see a groff manual written in groff, with
plenty of colour and graphics.
I envision that the best route is to extend the UTP for
Keith, maybe you've sent this as a private mail to David ...
Not intentionally. Looks like I hit Reply instead of
Reply-to-All, forgetting that groff list mailings don't set the
Reply-to header appropriately :-( Could this be altered, as say,
the SourceForge mail lists do?
Mhmm, I think
I'd be happy to submit patches once it's converted to roff but I
just can't bring myself to submit documentation fixes to roff
docs written in texinfo.
Sorry, this won't happen for various reasons.
I know you've told me before but it must not have been a very
satisfying answer
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 09:31:05PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
I'd be happy to submit patches once it's converted to roff but I
just can't bring myself to submit documentation fixes to roff
docs written in texinfo.
Sorry, this won't happen for various reasons.
I know you've
On 22/10/2005, at 6:00 AM, Larry McVoy wrote:
I'm not sure how you are going to get more roff users when the first
thing
they see is the project not using its own product. A documentation
tool
where the documentation for it is written in a different tool? Come
on,
nobody is going to say
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 09:10:39AM +1000, Miklos Somogyi wrote:
On 22/10/2005, at 6:00 AM, Larry McVoy wrote:
I'm not sure how you are going to get more roff users when the first
thing
they see is the project not using its own product. A documentation
tool
where the documentation for
Which is the *best* editor?
The one I know in I know my spine.
Which is the second best editor?
The one used by most of the folks around me,
because that means they can help me and I can help them and
deep shared knowledge is an exponential function.
Meg McRoberts wrote:
I've been fiddling with OpenOffice lately.
In this context, I consider OpenOffice to be equivalent to Word
(yeah, I know, at least it's not a proprietary format and all).
And that things basically *work* in OOo.
For technical documents, I need a lot more flexibility
On Wednesday 19 October 2005 17:22, Jon Snader wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0100, Keith MARSHALL wrote:
I've tried various editors in my time, Emacs among them. But, I
keep going back to vi, (or (g)vim), for personal choice.
In the end, there can be only one.
If only the
Hi
I prefer sam as a editor for UNIX.
and if possible, acme.
Both came from Plan9.
May be there is someone interested in those :=)
Gabriel
2005/10/20, Zahar Malinovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday 19 October 2005 17:22, Jon Snader wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0100, Keith
Meg McRoberts wrote
I prefer HTML as an output format from the same source that can also
generate PS, PDF, formatted ASCII... It's great to get a technical
document into HTML to display on the web but if I want a printed
copy, the HTML doc isn't compact enough to be satisfying...
I would
Which is the *best* editor?
The one I know in I know my spine.
Or in the case of vi, my fingers. I've been known to write about Un*x
topics in a GUI text editor, start jackhammering the 'j' key, and
wonder why the cursor isn't moving down.
Is anyone collecting the reasons for using
Have you actually looked at groff.texinfo? A pdf-Version can be
found at
http://groff.ffii.org/groff/groff-1.19.2.pdf
Comments (and patches!) to improve this are highly welcome.
I'd be happy to submit patches once it's converted to roff but I
just can't bring myself to submit
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:01:24PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Have you actually looked at groff.texinfo? A pdf-Version can be
found at
http://groff.ffii.org/groff/groff-1.19.2.pdf
Comments (and patches!) to improve this are highly welcome.
I'd be happy to submit patches
On 19/10/2005, at 11:23 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
For me a much better documentation would be enough, [...]
Have you actually looked at groff.texinfo? A pdf-Version can be found
at
http://groff.ffii.org/groff/groff-1.19.2.pdf
Comments (and patches!) to improve this are highly welcome.
On 19/10/2005, at 3:18 PM, Clarke Echols wrote:
The problem is that these engineers don't have managers with
sense enough to lean on them to learn to use better tools to
get more done in less time. By learning to use the tools, and
nothing more complicated than simple shell scripts (I don't
Werner Lemberg wrote:
In the case of SGR sequences, unless the user specifically uses
the `--enable-sgr' option, [...]
Keith, maybe you've sent this as a private mail to David ...
Not intentionally. Looks like I hit Reply instead of Reply-to-All,
forgetting that groff list mailings don't set
Werner Lemberg wrote:
This is related to the general editing capabilities of Emacs
which are superior to most other editors.
Oh, oh. This looks like an invitation to start a religious war,
(which I *don't* want to get into). :-)
I've tried various editors in my time, Emacs among them. But,
For me a much better documentation would be enough, [...]
Have you actually looked at groff.texinfo? A pdf-Version can be found at
http://groff.ffii.org/groff/groff-1.19.2.pdf
Comments (and patches!) to improve this are highly welcome.
Werner
This is related to the general editing capabilities of Emacs which
are superior to most other editors.
Oh, oh. This looks like an invitation to start a religious war,
(which I *don't* want to get into). :-)
OK, OK!
I've tried various editors in my time, Emacs among them. But, I
keep
On 10/19/05, Jon Snader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0100, Keith MARSHALL wrote:
I've tried various editors in my time, Emacs among them. But, I
keep going back to vi, (or (g)vim), for personal choice.
In the end, there can be only one.
Christophe
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005, Alejandro López-Valencia wrote:
On 10/19/05, Jon Snader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0100, Keith MARSHALL wrote:
I've tried various editors in my time, Emacs among them. But, I
keep going back to vi, (or (g)vim), for personal
Working down the backlog...
I spend my days writing large, complex, highly-technical
documents in Word for this reason. It's quite ugly, but
we have to have documents that sales people and engineers
and such can extract and repurpose... And young engineers
don't know how to roff any more than
Clarke Echols wrote:
... By learning to use the tools, and
nothing more complicated than simple shell scripts (I don't
have the skills to get fancy because I don't think they're all
that necessary when an easier approach works well), I was
able to consistently get more done than any 4-10
I've been fiddling with OpenOffice lately. It's not a beauty, but it's
sturdy and does a pretty good job importing exporting Word
files. I've literally had cases where OpenOffice had better luck
with a seriously gnarly Word file than did Word itself.
In this context, I consider OpenOffice to
Comments (and patches!) to improve this are highly welcome.
I'm all ears (or eyes, as the case may be).
___
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
For my editing work I also use joe, not emacs :-) But the built-in
Lisp interpreter of emacs allows to do mighty things...
This brings up a funny story from when I first started as chief
webmaster. There's several files on fencepost (there used to be
*lots* of files, including on the FTP
Hmmm...why not take the text from NEWS and insert it into the html
file?
Verbatim? This is quite ugly IMHO.
I'm not completely happy with the markup that groff puts out for
this purpose.
Details, please. Maybe it can improved easily.
What shall the *groff* configure script do?
I have just been made a developer of the groff project to assist
with your documentation, and with the texinfo manual, (and perhaps
your website?).
This is great! Excuse my ignorance, but how exactly is one made a
developer of a specific project?
`To made someone a developer' basically
There are several options, though, without changing groff
configuration. [Excellent explanation omitted.]
Something like that should go into the PROBLEMS file IMHO -- or do you
suggest a better place, perhaps a new file? Any volunteers?
Werner
We had a discussion on this list a few months ago, that if anyone
had done a WYSIWYG front-end for groff years ago, it would be more
viable for the masses. Sigh.
Well, Larry and Ted showed scripts which can do that. We should
probably add such a thing to groff. Volunteers to prepare a
I really would like to see the UTP improved, this is, all references
to dead features/programs should be removed, and the new groff
features should be incorporated as extensions.
Yes, I know we talked about that... It's just a question of time.
There's a small number of you who really know
Maybe this tool should not be incorporated into groff
but done separately... XMetal and the like aren't part
of XML... I think I like the idea of groff remaining
pure anyhow, and it might spare us some bureaucratic
headaches.
Theoretically, one could develop the front-end as a commercial
This makes sense. So how many official developers does groff have?
4, plus Werner. I don't know how active the others are.
It would be nice to provide some sample scripts, or perhaps
I think this is an excellent idea.
I realized after I posted this that it sounded like I
I'm not completely happy with the markup that groff puts out for
this purpose.
Details, please. Maybe it can improved easily.
The first thing that comes to mind is that there is text before
the DTD. This kills compliance support for IE, if not some other
browsers.
I'll provide a
In the case of SGR sequences, unless the user specifically uses the
`--enable-sgr' option, `configure' will attempt to run the specified
`nroff' command, to format a minimal manpage, and `grep' the output for
an identifiable SGR sequence, before adding the `-c' option to the
On Oct 18, 2005, at 1:54 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
And there seems to be a good groff mode for vim. Unfortunately, the
groff mode for emacs is rather bad AFAIK...
Yet roff (1) reads The best program for editing a roff document is
Emacs (or Xemacs)...!
Robert.
On Tuesday 18 Oct 2005 12:44, D. E. Evans wrote:
We had a discussion on this list a few months ago, that if anyone had
done a WYSIWYG front-end for groff years ago, it would be more viable for
the masses. Sigh.
Like all UNIX tools, the specialized ones are the most viable. I
lament
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 08:49:50PM +0100, Deri James wrote:
I am not persuaded a gui would improve groff adoption (has LyX helped
LaTex?).
Even if such a GUI were available, who would use it? As Deri
says, LyX is available for LaTeX, and LaTeX probably does a
better job at typesetting than
Side note -- Warren's mail went to my Bulk mailbox. Now why did
this get flagged when they miss the pornography that so often
arrives on this list? Sigh.
Are you sure about that? Have you really received such a mail via the
groff list? Looking into the groff mailing list archive, I don't
Sadly, I fear that it's too late to really save groff...
But the advantage of a GUI is that casual users could use
the GUI and the rest of us could use real groff. It's
hard to justify doc tools that are fairly complicated
to use and known by very few these days...
I spend my days writing large,
I really would like to see the UTP improved, this is, all
references to dead features/programs should be removed, and the
new groff features should be incorporated as extensions.
Yes, I know we talked about that... It's just a question of time.
There's a small number of you who really
I don't know if the offers to see naked pictures of Ted's
wife and such actually went through the mailing list --
they just came with the spoofed sender stuff... Come to
think of it, it's been a while since we've had any problems,
hasn't it? Hopefully that's all in the past...
We all know that
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:30:06PM -0700, Meg McRoberts wrote:
Sadly, I fear that it's too late to really save groff...
And young engineers
don't know how to roff any more than the salespeople do ;-(
You can teach them, and a lot more of them know it than you think, they
write man pages.
--
Be warned that I need a copyright assignment (from those who
haven't assigned one already) in case the added code is longer
than around 15 lines.
As far as formal copyright is concerned, I'm not sure of the
implications.
You don't have to worry since you've already signed a copyright
The first thing that comes to mind is that there is text before
the DTD. This kills compliance support for IE, if not some other
browsers.
Aah, yes, grohtml doesn't produce fully valid HTML. I assume that
Gaius is overloaded with work since he mentioned a longer time ago
that he is going to
Like all UNIX tools, the specialized ones are the most viable. I
lament the day groff goes gui. However, I think that a seperate gui
frontend is not a bad idea.
Hmm, on today's computer everything is so fast that the
editor-groff-ps-ghostview cycle can be run amost constantly in the
Larry, I say Amen to your dream. Until then I am looking for a wireless
keyboard with
lots of special keys, that are all mine, and enough space around them
to put my notes
there, that would do the same: insert markups etc into the file :-)
Miklos
On 19/10/2005, at 7:41 AM, Larry McVoy
On 19/10/2005, at 7:19 AM, Meg McRoberts wrote:
Older engineers know (or once knew) some *roff... Not so much
the younger ones. A whole generation went through college without
learning much of anything about Unix/Linux, sadly. I work with
a lot of fairly decent engineers who don't really
Miklos Somogyi wrote:
On 19/10/2005, at 7:19 AM, Meg McRoberts wrote:
The vast majority could put up with frequent crashes, with long
printing times
of very simple documents, with the fact that things did not really
looked like they should have,
that they had to do repeat jobs
Please do so! For testing and educational purposes, the web site
is directly created by groff from `webpage.ms' (and `groff.css').
I wonder if this is on the ffii site, not gnu.org. Is the gnu.org
page (at /software/groff) a mirror of the ffii site?
For simplicity, they are the
However, I think a better idea would be to do it through the
configure script. Did I overlook an option already present?
What shall the *groff* configure script do? Shouldn't this be rather
something in the *man* configure script?
The removal of the escape
Welcome, David!
I have just been made a
developer of the groff project to assist with your documentation,
and with the texinfo manual, (and perhaps your website?).
This is great! Excuse my ignorance, but how exactly is one made
a developer of a specific project? I'm just curious how these
92 matches
Mail list logo
