Joerg Schilling wrote: > James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > > > For example it makes me unhappy that the manual pages are in a > > > DocBook-like format but /usr/bin/man exposes zero features of Docbook to > > > the end-users (and the intermediate generation of troff files causes > > > trouble with tables, non-ASCII charatcers, transliteration, embedded > > > code examples etc.). > > > > Sure; there's plenty to be desired. I wouldn't suggest boiling away > > the ocean to get to it, though. I had though we were discussing the > > possible ways to get at the desired MANPATH=PATH behavior, not what > > the future may hold for man in general. > > The main problem is the quality of the content in Docbook format > and the quality of the troff conversion. > > Given the fact that it is impossible for me to edit the Docbook variants of > the man pages, I would vote for going back to the troff format which > causes less troubles.
Slightly offtopic: Erm, I can create and edit SolBook+DocBook documents without problems and it's not difficult to learn... You may prefer troff but I think that BookBook+SolBook is far superior in this case because it is a markup for the content and not for the layout. Going back to troff would be a _huge_ step backwards... ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
