Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 04 Jul 2001 12:06:38 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > > > > Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I want to adapt run_man2html.sh to man2html which is included with man on > > > some linux systems. It is in fact cgi script that generates http headers > > > too (which are stripped). I am leaving the current functionality, so > > > run_man2html.sh auto-detects man2html and works with what is installed. > > > > > > The output is different from what we have now by the following: > > > > > > * it looks more like html, not man, i.e. <pre> is not used globally > > > * real bold and italic used instead of colors (colors may be added too) > > > * subsection index is generated with proper links inside the document > > > * links to http://, ftp:// and mail address strings are added > > > * other minor differences, say the date inside the man page is displaye > d > > > > > > There are several problems, but they may be fixed by adding pre-filters > > > and post-filters using pipe. > > > > > > I added colors using <style>, looks ok for me in browsers supporting css, > > > but they may be turned off completely if real bold and italic are used. > > > > > > I would give it a try, then we may compare, discuss. > > > > run_man2html currently uses man2html. On my system, thats > > currently man2html version 1.2. > > > > man2html 1.2 uses bold and italic by default. > > I didn't like the way it looked and added the arguments: > > > > -belem 'font color="cyan"' > > -uelem 'font color="yellow"' > > > > man2html 1.2 will generate headers by default, but I wanted more > > control so I added "-bare". > > > > By all means, go ahead and see what improvements you can make. > > man2html on my system is complitly different, it is cgi, i.e. almost > has no command line options. It is shipped together with man(1). > > There are probably many man2html-like scripts all with different > functionality, I just used what is installed. > > I don't like the man2html I have. I added so many work-arounds that it > probably would be easier (not really) to rewrite it from stratch in perl. > > Anyway, I think it is now ok as the web page, but this is questionable. > One may like empty space on the left, other may think empty space only > uses real estate of the browser and does not add anything. > > I have no problems if we return to the previous format, just wanted to > show an alternative.
I don't like empty space on the left. It doesn't serve any purpose. Lately I've been using Opera as my primary browser. It doesn't like the way the .EX tags are framed: <PRE><blockquote>AddToMenu Utilities Utilities Title + Xterm Exec exec xterm -e tcsh + Rxvt Exec exec rxvt ... + "" Nop + Exit Fvwm Popup Quit-Verify</blockquote></PRE> it ends up flowing all the text in the example together. I don't think it likes <blockquote> inside of <pre>. Explorer and Navigator have no problem. -- Dan Espen 444 Hoes Lane Room RRC 1C-214 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Piscataway, NJ 08854 Phone: (732) 699-5570 -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
