tsmith@solbourne.com (Terry Smith) (05/03/91)
Any Xroff users out there? We're currently using eroff, but want to evaluate Xroff. It looks like any other roff to me, but with a few X-named scripts doing some of the work. I don't see any real connection to X Windows other than it has a previewer that runs in an xterm. Any experiences out there? I'll post a summary of responses. -- f--u----cn-----rd---ths------u--cn--gt----a----gd--jb Terry Smith Solbourne Computer, Inc tsmith@solbourne.COM Longmont, Colorado 80501
chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May3.163405.23681@solbourne.com> tsmith@solbourne.com (Terry Smith) writes: >Any Xroff users out there? The Image Network folks were kind enough to let me eval a copy of xroff when I was DWB shopping. I ended up selecting eroff, but I've got nice things to say about the Image Network people and the xroff product. >We're currently using eroff, but want to evaluate Xroff. It looks like >any other roff to me, but with a few X-named scripts doing some of the work. >I don't see any real connection to X Windows other than it has a previewer >that runs in an xterm. First, you are right, the Image Network xroff program has no relation to the X Window Pig(tm). xroff is their port of DWB. I tested it out on a plain vanilla XENIX/386 box. I like xroff. It and Elan seemed to be the two most robust DWB's I looked at. Xroff also included a nice set of fonts - from DigiFont I believe. I'd kill to be able to have a copy of the `Palatino' font Image Network ships. The HP Palacio is a poor substitute. (I'll leave my story of how the DigiFont sales prevention people kept me from doing business with them for another time.) 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. Therefore, if you've got any tools for printer handling, fonts, etc. they are useless. I needed this capability, and thus xroff was rendered unusable for my needs. xroff is similar in capability (and unfortunately price) to Elan eroff. All the preprocessors (pic, tbl, etc.) are there. If not for the proprietary backend, the choice between eroff and xroff would probably have been a coin flip. I think I would have ended up picking xroff because of the fonts. BTW...why are you looking to drop eroff? -- Chip Rosenthal 512-482-8260 | Unicom Systems Development | I saw Elvis in my wtmp file. <chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM> |
jenkins@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Steve Jenkins) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May3.163405.23681@solbourne.com> tsmith@solbourne.com (Terry Smith) writes: >Any Xroff users out there? When I was working on my dissertation in 1987, I had a hell of a time with xroff on eqn expressions like 'roman Q dot'. I finally figured out that Image Network hadn't implemented the ct numeric register that tells about character height and depth. After I had spent some time debugging and constructing a workaround, I called Image Network and heard something to the effect of "oh, so *that's* why that doesn't work". They didn't think ct was used anyplace, so they didn't put the information into the font files. It may be a fine product now, so draw your own conclusions. I use LaTeX :-). -- Steve Jenkins N6UNI jenkins@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (818) 354-0162
woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (05/08/91)
In article <1983@chinacat.Unicom.COM> chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) writes: > In article <1991May3.163405.23681@solbourne.com> > tsmith@solbourne.com (Terry Smith) writes: > >Any Xroff users out there? I'm not an Xroff user, so you might want to take my comments in stride. I do however have extensive (user) experience with V7-troff, DWB-1.0, DWB-2.0, and SQtroff. > I like xroff. It and Elan seemed to be the two most robust DWB's I > looked at. 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. The first version of tbl from that release usually dumped core. Some vendors fixed it before the released it, others didn't. Other than that, I've rarely seen anything in any DWB behave rudely or dump core, thus I'd call them all robust. > 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. > Therefore, if you've got any tools for printer handling, fonts, etc. > they are useless. I needed this capability, and thus xroff was rendered > unusable for my needs. This does sound like a *VERY* important consideration. There are lots of tools for dealing with di-troff output.... Even though SoftQuad enhanced their SQtroff output, they did fully document it (not that it's hard to understand in the first place!), and they also provided a filter to convert it back into di-troff(5). -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL
lark@greylock.tivoli.com (Lar Kaufman) (05/09/91)
In article <1983@chinacat.Unicom.COM> chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) writes: > In article <1991May3.163405.23681@solbourne.com> > tsmith@solbourne.com (Terry Smith) 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. > Therefore, if you've got any tools for printer handling, fonts, etc. > they are useless. I needed this capability, and thus xroff was rendered > unusable for my needs. This does sound like a *VERY* important consideration. There are lots of tools for dealing with di-troff output.... Even though SoftQuad enhanced their SQtroff output, they did fully document it (not that it's hard to understand in the first place!), and they also provided a filter to convert it back into di-troff(5). 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, and other printer drivers as well - even popular PC printers (there is an Xroff for MS-DOS). I've published manuals using Xroff and found it quite satisfactory - though I like the later SQtroff stuff, too. -lar Lar Kaufman I would feel more optimistic about a bright future (voice) 512-794-9070 for man if he spent less time proving that he can (fax) 512-794-0623 outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness lark@tivoli.com and respecting her seniority. - E.B. White
chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) (05/10/91)
[ 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. <chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM> |
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) (05/10/91)
In article <748@tivoli.UUCP> lark@tivoli.com (Lar Kaufman) writes: |In article <1983@chinacat.Unicom.COM> chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM |(Chip Rosenthal) writes: | > In article <1991May3.163405.23681@solbourne.com> | > tsmith@solbourne.com (Terry Smith) 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. | > Therefore, if you've got any tools for printer handling, fonts, etc. | > they are useless. I needed this capability, and thus xroff was rendered | > unusable for my needs. | This does sound like a *VERY* important consideration. There are lots | of tools for dealing with di-troff output.... Even though SoftQuad | enhanced their SQtroff output, they did fully document it (not that | it's hard to understand in the first place!), and they also provided a | filter to convert it back into di-troff(5). |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, and other printer drivers as |well - even popular PC printers (there is an Xroff for MS-DOS). That begs several questions: - since the interface isn't documented, you can't write your own if xroff's vendors don't think your printer is worth while. - People specialize in writing drivers - I doubt that xroff's HPLJ driver is as good as jetroff's or psroff's (in efficiency as well as appearance), or postscript output as good as psdit (Transcript). Or has the facilities for adding fonts. - There are a LOT more textual output methodologies than you think. I'm continually astounded with the wierd things people get psroff to drive - xditview, xproof and xtroff to name just ditroff display (not printing) mechanisms - each with its own idiosyncrasies. - it is possible to do such things as page flipping in ditroff format - these tools become useless with xroff. - Single sourcing. - "adequate" selection of fonts? That sounds rather ominous. Can't you add your own? -- Chris Lewis, Phone: (613) 832-0541, Domain: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca UUCP: ...!cunews!latour!ecicrl!clewis; Ferret Mailing List: ferret-request@eci386; Psroff (not Adobe Transcript) enquiries: psroff-request@eci386 or Canada 416-832-0541. Psroff 3.0 in c.s.u soon!