🚀 go-pugleaf

andrew@cubetech.com writes:

>In article <tlm.718249912@scl1.al.iastate.edu> tlm@iastate.edu (Dr. T.L. Marchioro II) writes:
>>Sadly, there's little to do about it now (except complain, which we're all
>>quite good at :-) but perhaps I can offer a better solution to Louis' original
>>question --- i.e. a solution with pagenumbering, headers, etc. which runs on 
>>any NeXT --- which at least "calms the waters" on one aspect of this 
>>question.  Why not have everyone put their documentation in troff??
>>[...]


>Yuk.  Just use whatever Word/Document processor you want and save it
>in PostScript format.  If you want multi-platform compatibility, then
>use FrameMaker (which exists on _every_ platform).  FrameMaker is
>freely distributable in it's read-only form without the license
>string...

This is not a bad idea; we're banging the idea around where I work,
after people have had a chance to sweat with Word Prefect for a few
weeks, part of which involved producing some large reports under a real
deadline.  :~)  One of the guys then started playing with FM, and saw
the business about the freely distributable demo version, and began to
think...

Troff is problematic, because you can't do a program's inline docs using
it.  One of the points of all this seamless integration stuff is to
reduce the amount of work you have to do.  Who wants to write documentation
twice, once for inline and once for external, when the same documentation
can suffice for both?  Besides, troff just isn't insanely great.  :~)
-- 
Royce Howland, DKW Systems Corp.   |  "And since OS/2 2.0 is a 32-bit
       Everything is IMHO          |   operating system, programs are easier
royce@splunge.uucp  (NeXTMail OK)  |   to write and run faster, too."
or kakwa!atlantis!splunge!royce    |  ad for OS/2 2.0