Follow-up Comment #2, bug #68299 (group groff):

On Thursday, 30 April 2026 19:51:36 BST you wrote:
> What distinguishes this ticket from bug #67665?  Does this one supersede the
> earlier one?

That bug concerned pdfms.tmac which operated as an addon (in the same way as
spdf.tmac was an addon to pdfmark.tmac, which required the user to use the
newer NH/XN combination rather than the original NH to create bookmarks).

Given that most historical ms documents would use NH (with XS/XE if a TOC was
required), I wanted to make s.tmac support them without adding non roffish
flag letters to macro calls. The use of ".pdfhref M" to "mark" a position in
the document is unfortunate, I would prefer a native ms macro such as:-

.XM name [text]

instead. This could also obviate the need for dual working tricks based on
testing PDFFEAT. I didn't feel confident whether extending the s.tmac
repertoire of commands was really my choice.

The pdfms bug was the "breeding ground" for the code in this bug, and allowed
you to straighten  out the numerous bugs in .asciify upon which this code
relies. So, it does supercede the original bug.

> Revising Summary; see
> [https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2026-04/msg00061.html mailinglist
> cogitation].

I'm happy. Although I must admit to being a bit flummoxed, but if you are
happy to zoom in and correct my mistaken tags, I shan't worry.



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68299>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to