Next: , Previous: ms Document Control Registers, Up: ms


4.3.4 Cover page macros

Use the following macros to create a cover page for your document in the order shown.

— Macro: .RP [no]

Specifies the report format for your document. The report format creates a separate cover page. The default action (no RP macro) is to print a subset of the cover page on page 1 of your document.

If you use the word no as an optional argument, groff prints a title page but does not repeat any of the title page information (title, author, abstract, etc.) on page 1 of the document.

— Macro: .P1

(P-one) Prints the header on page 1. The default is to suppress the header.

— Macro: .DA [...]

(optional) Prints the current date, or the arguments to the macro if any, on the title page (if specified) and in the footers. This is the default for nroff.

— Macro: .ND [...]

(optional) Prints the current date, or the arguments to the macro if any, on the title page (if specified) but not in the footers. This is the default for troff.

— Macro: .TL

Specifies the document title. groff collects text following the TL macro into the title, until reaching the author name or abstract.

— Macro: .AU

Specifies the author's name, which appears on the line (or lines) immediately following. You can specify multiple authors as follows:

          
          .AU
          John Doe
          .AI
          University of West Bumblefuzz
          .AU
          Martha Buck
          .AI
          Monolithic Corporation
          
          ...
— Macro: .AI

Specifies the author's institution. You can specify multiple institutions in the same way that you specify multiple authors.

— Macro: .AB [no]

Begins the abstract. The default is to print the word ABSTRACT, centered and in italics, above the text of the abstract. The word no as an optional argument suppresses this heading.

— Macro: .AE

Ends the abstract.

The following is example mark-up for a title page.

     
     .RP
     .TL
     The Inevitability of Code Bloat
     in Commercial and Free Software
     .AU
     J. Random Luser
     .AI
     University of West Bumblefuzz
     .AB
     This report examines the long-term growth
     of the code bases in two large, popular software
     packages; the free Emacs and the commercial
     Microsoft Word.
     While differences appear in the type or order
     of features added, due to the different
     methodologies used, the results are the same
     in the end.
     .PP
     The free software approach is shown to be
     superior in that while free software can
     become as bloated as commercial offerings,
     free software tends to have fewer serious
     bugs and the added features are in line with
     user demand.
     .AE
     
     ... the rest of the paper follows ...