--- wikisrc/projects/project/troff.mdwn	2014/02/27 08:41:03	1.3
+++ wikisrc/projects/project/troff.mdwn	2014/02/27 09:04:43	1.4
@@ -10,14 +10,74 @@ category="userland"
 difficulty="hard"
 
 description="""
-Write a replacement for groff that is BSD licensed.  Earlier versions of BSD
-UNIX had one, so maybe it could be revived from an earlier version of BSD UNIX,
-and updated to support newer groff-like features, at least enough to support our
-current mandoc macros.
-
-Note: In March, 2009, there was some discussion regarding a
-[groff/-mandoc replacement](http://mdocml.bsd.lv/) on the
-[tech-userlevel](http://mail-index.NetBSD.org/tech-userlevel/2009/03/01/msg001766.html)
-mailing list.
+
+While we now have mandoc for handling man pages, we currently still
+need groff in the tree to handle miscellaneous docs that are not man
+pages.
+
+This is itself an inadequate solution as the groff we have does not
+support PDF output (which in this day and age is highly desirable)
+... and while newer groff does support PDF output it does so via a
+Perl script. Also, importing a newer groff is problematic for assorted
+other reasons.
+
+We need a way to typeset miscellaneous articles that we can import
+into base and that ideally is BSD licensed. (And that can produce
+PDFs.) Currently it looks like there are three decent ways forward:
+
+* Design a new roff macro package that's comparable to mdoc (e.g.
+supports semantic markup) but is for miscellaneous articles rather
+than man pages, then teach mandoc to handle it.
+
+* Design a new set of markup tags comparable to mdoc (e.g. supports
+semantic markup) but for miscellaneous articles, and a different less
+ratty syntax for it, then teach mandoc to handle this.
+
+* Design a new set of markup tags comparable to mdoc (e.g. supports
+semantic markup) but for miscellaneous articles, and a different less
+ratty syntax for it, and write a new program akin to mandoc to handle
+it.
+
+These are all difficult and a lot of work, and in the case of new
+syntax are bound to cause a lot of shouting and stamping. Also, many
+of the miscellaneous documents use various roff preprocessors and it
+isn't clear how much of this mandoc can handle.
+
+None of these options is particularly appealing.
+
+There are also some less decent ways forward:
+
+* Pick one of the existing roff macro packages for miscellaneous
+articles (ms, me, ...) and teach mandoc to handle it. Unfortunately
+all of these macro packages are pretty ratty, they're underpowered
+compared to mdoc, and none of them support semantic markup.
+
+* Track down one of the other older roff implementations, that are now
+probably more or less free (e.g. ditroff), then stick to the existing
+roff macro packages as above. In addition to the drawbacks cited
+above, any of these programs are likely to be old nasty code that
+needs a lot of work.
+
+* Teach the groff we have how to emit PDFs, then stick to the existing
+roff macro packages as above. In addition to the drawbacks cited
+above, this will likely be pretty nasty work and it's still got the
+wrong license.
+
+* Rewrite groff as BSD-licensed code and provide support for
+generating PDFs, then stick to the existing roff macro packages as
+above. In addition to the drawbacks cited above, this is a horrific
+amount of work.
+
+* Try to make something else do what we want. Unfortunately, TeX is a
+nonstarter and the only other halfway realistic candidate is lout...
+which is GPLv3 and at least at casual inspection looks like a horrible
+mess of its own.
+
+These options are even less appealing.
+
+Maybe someone can think of a better idea. There are lots of choices if
+we give up on typeset output, but that doesn't seem like a good plan
+either.
+
 """
 ]]