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