14 May
2018
14 May
'18
8:25 p.m.
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 11:18:48AM -0700, Jon Steinhart wrote:
arnold(a)skeeve.com writes:
I've successfully used troff to write our commercial contract.
I collaborated with a guy at Fenwick&West, taught him enough troff -ms
that he could make changes. We sourced 6 different contracts from one doc
and the lawyer *loved* that, he really wanted that fuctionality in Word.
Nemo Nusquam <cym224(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, this issue, at least in my case, isn't troff per-se. It's that editors
and such want to be able to read test, make comments in the margins, and track
changes. I would claim that troff, tex, et. al. are great tools for people
who write stuff and shepherd it to publication which is great for specs and
technical papers and all that. What's lacking is tools for the involvement
of third-parties such as editors. On 05/14/18 11:21, Jon Steinhart wrote (in
part):
This is getting off-topic. Prentice Hall (Pearson) generally works with
Word but they are able to make allowance for other formats. For sure TeX,
and they can work with troff if the author wants to provide the "camera
ready copy" themselves (see, for example, Brian's book on Go, done with
groff).
I wrote my PH book in Texinfo and the converted it to DocBook XML; they
used a contractor to actually go from there to typesettable copy.
Arnold Also, as part of the book project, I have a
script that I've written that
converts the original troff source into OpenOffice XHTML since my publisher
won't do troff.
I am curious about PHI. Tannenbaum praises troff in his prefaces (and
says that all his books are written in troff). Not much on the PHI website.
N.