On 2023-08-13 23:55, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > 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. Hmm, then let's leave it open to discussion then. > >> 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. > Sure, I'll ping you. I see you're fixing many of my bug reports. Thanks for the TS register, and more for making it default to 2! ;) Cheers, Alex > Regards, > Branden -- <http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/> GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
