fwiw, Pandoc (https://pandoc.org) claims to be able to translate between MediaWiki and both man and ms roff macros.




d


> On 27 Jan 2023, at 11:54, segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
>
> You just got my head all abuzz on whether a *roff<->MediaWiki transpiler would be: 1. Possible and 2. Beneficial.
>
> We use a MediaWiki at work for aggregating random tidbits from people that they think might get lost in project noise.  There's times I'd love to have some way to *roff-ize the materials for white papers, the printouts from MediaWiki are uuuuugly.  Benefits on the flip-side would be rapidly getting all sorts of documentation into Wiki format pretty quickly.
>
> Of course, for an actual documentation project, there would need to be a master as diverse edits in different places wouldn't track with one another.  In this case, the *roff sources would probably make a better master for diff reasons.
>
> - Matt G.
>
> ------- Original Message -------
>> On Thursday, January 26th, 2023 at 4:36 PM, G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Joseph,
>> At 2023-01-26T14:41:50-0800, Joseph Holsten wrote:
>>> And if I’m writing in troff, is there a preferred macro set for
>>> articles these days? A decade ago I wrote manuals in mdoc but papers
>>> in LaTeX; these days I just lean on pandoc to translate. I’ll need to
>>> knock my rust off.
>> There's always ms. It's pretty easy to acquire, and will produce
>> authentic looking traditional Unix papers with little effort. Here's a
>> manual that Larry Kollar and I wrote, in source and PDF forms. It's
>> gotten positive feedback from the groff mailing list.
>> Regards,
>> Branden