Re: groff/-mandoc replacement (OT)

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 09:07:50PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> You still need pic, tbl, eqn, etc. to pre-process those documents first
> anyway, in addition to parsing full troff -- or to also parse those
> extensions to the troff language.  mdoc(7) documents may also contain
> uses of any of those extensions, and they often do.

No, you don't. Please look at the reality before making wild claims.
Use of non-mdoc markup is discouraged at best and often enough simply an
error.

Users of tbl(1):
- troff(1) [not mdoc]
- grn(1) [not mdoc]
- grolbp(1) [not mdoc]
- ksh(1) [not mdoc]
- queue(3)
- phantasia(6)
- hp700/cpu.4
(I do consider support for tbl(1) useful and it is not outside the
scope)

Users of pic(1):
soelim(1) [this is not correctly converted to cat right so, so unlikely
anyone cares, it is also not mdoc]
rcsfile(5) [not mdoc]

Users of eqn(1):
- groff_out(5) [not mdoc]
- groff_diff(7) [not mdoc]

You might get the picture.

There is *one* non-mdoc feature I would consider to support and that is
the .if macro, simply because it makes it much harder to write proper
documentation for the mathematical functions.

Joerg