On Thu, May 03, 2012, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote: > > > I think esr is emphasizing (!) that in a structural-markup > > language the tags can have no typographic meaning whatsoever. > > Correct. What Anton was considering unfair is the implication > that troff only does presentational markup
Which is patently untrue. Using mom macros and HTML as an example: .HEAD "Foo <h1>Foo</h1> .PP <p> Lorem ipsum... Lorem ipsum... .SUBHEAD "Bar <h2>Bar</h2> .PP <p> Lorem ipsum... Lorem ipsum... .LIST <ul> .ITEM <li> Item one Item one</li> .ITEM <li> Item two Item two</li> .LIST off </ul> .SUBSUBHEAD "Baz" <h3>Baz</h3> .PP <p> Lorem ipsum... Lorem ipsum... > I think the idea is to stop thinking of troff and TeX as > presentation-markup languages. They're more universal. Indeed, and therein lies their usefulness: superb typographic control when you need it, and clear structural markup when that's what's called for. -- Peter Schaffter Author of The Binbrook Caucus http://www.schaffter.ca