mailing list archive link in manual appears to have rotted

replace it with a link to this Wayback Machine copy of the archived email: https://web.archive.org/web/20200518013251/https://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2013-December/006113.html Thanks and regards, Ian (Ian Ropers) PS: Should you choose to respond to this email (which you do not have to do

Groff manual subsection 4.6.5.7 Indented regions: Example is inconsistent w/ output provided

t below it). Thanks for your attention. Thanks and regards, Ian (Ian Ropers) PS: Should you choose to respond to this email (which you do not have to do), please know that for personal reasons it might take half an eternity for me to even read any reply, not to mention react. I mean no offence by

5.1.6 Tabs and Leaders - Next link seems incorrect in GROFF documentation

$ diff -u groff.texi.orig groff.texi --- groff.texi.orig 2024-03-05 18:20:59.940460376 + +++ groff.texi 2024-03-05 18:23:00.884303572 + @@ -5246,7 +5246,7 @@ @c - -@node Tabs and Leaders, Input Conventions, Adjustme

Groff documentation, 5.1.7 Requests and Macros -- not a correction, just a suggested stylistic change

This is not a correction, just a suggested change for --IMHO-- better readability. If you prefer to keep this as it is, no problem. $ diff -u groff.texi.orig groff.texi --- groff.texi.orig 2024-03-05 18:20:59.940460376 + +++ groff.texi 2024-03-07 02:16:01.493119683 + @@ -5362,9 +5362

Re: Groff documentation, 5.1.7 Requests and Macros -- not a correction, just a suggested stylistic change

> On 3/6/24, ropers wrote: >> -In fact, the ending marker is itself the name of a macro to be >> -called, or a request to be invoked, if it is defined at the time its >> -control line is read. >> +In fact, the ending marker can itself be the name of another macro to be

Groff UTF-8 support? - Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings

Hello there! Section 5.1.9 Input Encodings of the groff(1) documentation currently says: > Input to the GNU troff formatter itself, on the other hand, > must be in one of two encodings it can recognize. > > cp1047 > The code page 1047 input encoding works only on EBCDIC platforms > (and c

Re: Groff UTF-8 support? - Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings

On 07/03/2024, Dave Kemper wrote: > Hi Ian, thanks for your attention to the groff manual! Thank you very much, Dave, for your helpful and informative replies. :-) > On 3/7/24, ropers wrote: >> "latin1" sounds awfully ISO-8859-1ish, and (I fear) not very much like >

more Groff documentation navigation fixes

om AT&T ms, Differences from AT&T ms Thanks and regards, Ian (Ian Ropers)

Another issue in Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings - phrasing

Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings contains this paragraph: > Because a Euro glyph was not historically defined in PostScript fonts, > groff comes with a font called freeeuro.pfa that provides the Euro in > sever

Groff documentation: short TOC numbering, and HTML #anchor tag bookmarkability

I. It seems a little inconsistent that the Groff documentation's short TOC does not include the chapter numbers present in the long TOC. II. Also, one general issue, not just with the short TOC but in several places throughout the

Re: Groff UTF-8 support? - Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings

> > > On 3/7/24, ropers wrote: > > >> "latin1" sounds awfully ISO-8859-1ish, and (I fear) not very much like > > >> the Latin-1 Supplement Unicode block > > > > > On 07/03/2024, Dave Kemper wrote: > > > Correct. Since there

Re: Groff UTF-8 support? - Groff documentation section 5.1.9 Input Encodings

> Previously on Ropers, He Wrote: >> The thing I've given up on was figuring out how to preview my >> edits to groff.texi Thus spake DaveKempera: > This took me a while to figure out at first too, and the procedure > gained an extra step since that time (when g