Hi Alex, At 2023-08-13T22:47:34+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > Aha - Alex says .set: [...] > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2023-04/msg00213.html > > We might as well make it official in suffixes(7). > > .set troff(1) typeset output I don't think this convention is very widely used. troff(1) output is so seldom dealt with by users that it is little wonder to me that no convention has arisen here. As noted earlier somewhere, I prefer ".trout" for AT&T-compatible troff(1) output, and ".grout" for GNU troff(1) output. Strictly, the latter suffix would only be necessary if the syntax extension for multi-line device control commands is used, and I don't know for sure that late-vintage DWB troff or Research Unix troff didn't support it. Things got very murky with AT&T troff after the company decided it to try using it as a cash cow. > Which made me realize .roff is not documented. Branden, as the > maintainer of groff(1), would you mind checking that page and adding > all the groff(1)-related suffixes you find (or actually, that you > don't find)? Sure, but I've got other things on the burner right now and might need a reminder. Regards, Branden
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
