Follow-up Comment #11, bug #64043 (group groff): I wasn't too impressed with this report, which attempted to use the Groff Mission Statement as a bludgeon for the reporter to get his way.
Backward compatibility with existing documents and usage will remain a top
priority, as will avoiding feature-bloat and increased overheads.
Possibly that aspect of the statement promises or implies too much; over my
years of contributing to _groff_ I've observed and noted changes in Version 7,
DWB, and Heirloom versions of _ms_, _mm_, and _man_ (where applicable -- _mm_
wasn't in Version 7) that all could be cited as models against which "backward
compatibility" could be held as the highest "priority". (One of those
differences in _ms_ came up in the linked discussion.)
Adding _mandoc_(1) to the mixture, we've observed differences between its
_mdoc_ and that of Net/2 BSD as well.
So what to do when coequally canonical sources are in conflict?
You make a decision and document things.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64043>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
