Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!chris
From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: [on troff and cut marks]
Message-ID: <6054@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Mar-84 01:31:20 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.6054
Posted: Wed Mar 21 01:31:20 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Mar-84 08:43:54 EST
References: <120@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 15

I'm not convinced that using an ".if !\nv .tl ..." or equivalent
is the right way to make cut marks optional.  As far as I can tell,
the marks ought to be generated only for certain devices (or in
some cases -- such as the V80 which uses either fanfold or roll
paper -- for certain devices but not always).  Therefore it seems
to me that the cut marks should not be in the troff macros but in
the device driver (yes I realize that troff talks only to C/A/T
typesetters; I mean the conversion program [vcat] or in the case
of ditroff the postprocessor).

Does this not make sense?  If not, why not?
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci
UUCP:	{seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris.umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay