Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!chip From: chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) Newsgroups: comp.text Subject: Re: Xroff -- Request for Comments/Gripes Message-ID: <1996@chinacat.Unicom.COM> Date: 10 May 91 03:35:51 GMT References: <1991May3.163405.23681@solbourne.com> <1983@chinacat.Unicom.COM> <1991May7.170631.14030@eci386.uucp> <748@tivoli.UUCP> Distribution: usa Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX Lines: 47 [ Maybe I can flip out trn by following up two articles at once :-) ] In article <1991May7.170631.14030@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: >Just what do you mean by robust? I've only once encountered a >non-robust DWB, and that was the initial SysV/386 DWB-2.0. I meant I threw a bunch of documents at it and they worked. If I remember correctly, the only DWB which seemed to have any problems was the ISC troff. It could have very well been pilot error. I did take pains to document my results to (what was then) ISC/Hollis since they were kind enough to let me eval a copy, and nobody ever called back telling me I screwed up. In article <748@tivoli.UUCP> lark@greylock.tivoli.com (Lar Kaufman) writes: >In article <1983@chinacat.Unicom.COM> chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM >(Chip Rosenthal) writes: > > The thing which was a total knock-out punch for xroff is the fact that > > the backend is not ditroff compatible - nor was it documented. >Actually, this is probably less of a consideration than you may think. >Xroff provides an adequate selection of good fonts, as well as drivers for >almost any laser printer you could wish 1) I rolled my own `S' font by picking and choosing glyphs I wanted. With, xroff, I could not have done that. 2) My backend lets me place any arbitrary bitmap image into a document, providing I'm willing to throw a bit of code into understanding this new format. With xroff, I could not have done that. 3) The xroff I evaluated at the time didn't even have support for included bitmap images. I had a postprocessor which would. With xroff, I could not use it. 4) I've got the source to my postprocessor - I can make it do whatever I want. With xroff, I cannot use it. For some folks, locking up the backend is a knockout blow. Obviously that isn't an issue for you. You basically confirmed what I said in my original message. If you don't need access to the ditroff postprocessor then xroff seems to be a very nice package. -- Chip Rosenthal 512-482-8260 | Unicom Systems Development | I saw Elvis in my wtmp file. |