>> Yes. However, grohtml would be able to do different things, in a >> different way, and with proper markup the results could be >> excellent also. Sigh. > > It's interesting you say that, Werner, because I think grohtml is > broken by design, for the simple reason that HTML in no way > resembles a printer.
Today, the tty output device isn't a printer either... > Because troff affords the user finer control -- dot-addressable > control -- over the (intended) output, any conversion to HTML is > subject to gross loss of fidelity. Aren't the advantages of ditroff > completely lost? The idea is that macro packages like ms contain some helper macros to guide grohtml so that (most of) the high-level structure remains intact. On the other hand, grohtml sees the output of all groff macros, including the preprocessors. Where necessary, images are created. Werner