Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!gatech!rutgers!ucsd!ucsdhub!esosun!seismo!uunet!pcrat!rick From: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport Subject: Re: V/AT Text Preparation/Jetroff Keywords: troff man pages jetroff Message-ID: <580@pcrat.UUCP> Date: 22 Sep 88 01:18:53 GMT References: <152@carpet.WLK.COM> <476@uport.UUCP> <154@carpet.WLK.COM> Reply-To: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) Distribution: na Organization: PC Research, Inc., Tinton Falls, NJ Lines: 26 In article <154@carpet.WLK.COM> bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >the same result. It seems unlikely that the JetRoff post-processor is doing >the surgery because the same troff source through Textware's DWB and JetRoff >produces the desired result. This one's a puzzle and John seems to have the >key. > >result that we did, who dun it? Who's going to do what about it? Since >Rick specifically calls out DWB 2.0 and V/AT DWB is 1.0 could that be the >problem? I only called out 2.0 because thats what every troff user *should* have, and thats what I tested against. But ".B" being ignored by your troff and flying straight through into JetRoff to be printed as ".B" just isn't something that JetRoff has any control over. And I doubt that other 1.0 DWB troff's do anything so blantantly wrong, either. If I were John, I'd listen to the V/AT customers who've clamored for 2.0 for awhile now, and get somebody to compile it up on the 286. Its gotta be easier than trying to find, fix, and placate the people who have 1.0. And looky here, if you really have b*lls, you can charge 'em a 'small' upgrade fee. :-( -- Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. rick%pcrat.uucp@uunet.uu.net (INTERNET) uunet!pcrat!rick (UUCP, Personal Mail) ..!pcrat!jetroff (JetRoff Info) ..!pcrat!dry2 (Dhrystone Submissions)