From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 24 19:37:16 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAA010656C9 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 19:37:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from corky1951@comcast.net) Received: from qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11878FC1C for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 19:37:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta20.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.87]) by qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id MSEa1e0021smiN4A4XdHMH; Mon, 24 May 2010 19:37:17 +0000 Received: from comcast.net ([98.203.142.76]) by omta20.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id MXdG1e0081f6R9u8gXdGx8; Mon, 24 May 2010 19:37:17 +0000 Received: by comcast.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 24 May 2010 12:37:14 -0700 Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 12:37:14 -0700 From: Charlie Kester To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100524193714.GF216@comcast.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <20100524191307.GE216@comcast.net> <20100524191701.GA29256@britannica.bec.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100524191701.GA29256@britannica.bec.de> X-Mailer: Mutt 1.5.20 X-Composer: Vim 7.2 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: GSoC: BSD text tools X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 19:37:16 -0000 On Mon 24 May 2010 at 12:17:01 PDT Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: >On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:13:07PM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: >> I welcome this change, but groff is used for much more than manpages. >> What happens to pic, tbl, and the other troff-related "little >> languages"? How can you say mdocml is "completely replacing" groff if >> it doesn't support those kinds of things? > >tbl(1) is going to be supported fully at some point in the future. >It is work-in-progress. I am not sure if pic(1) is actually used beyond >the groff documentation, at least I don't remember anything in NetBSD >where I checked. Similiar usage is found for eqn(1). > >> Is the thinking that groff has only been in base to support manpages? >> If so, this project makes sense. But even so, some clarification of the >> intent is needed. > >The use of (g)roff for anything but man pages is practically >non-existent. If you want to use it for typesetting, you can always >install it. Yes, I understand that troff-style typesetting has mostly been abandoned in favor of WYSIWYG editing. And I don't have a problem with groff moving over to ports, for those who still want or need it. I just think announcements related to this project should try to avoid creating the misimpression that it's intended to replace ALL of groff's functionality. Saying it "completely replaces" groff is misleading when what was really meant is that it replaces groff *for our purposes*.