Peter Schaffter <pe...@schaffter.ca> wrote: > I have to say I completely agree. Backward compatibility is > essential, but more and more, I wonder about future compatibility. > As far as I know, I'm the only person actively developing > a macro set for groff.
I should claim here that I am also actively developping a macro set (visible on http://utroff.org). These macros have been made for Heirloom Troff, especially to handle these typographic extensions that are missing to groff. And I think that backward compatibility is something that we need. Simply because, at this time, each troff version has its advantages: if you want typographic features, you can actually use heirloom troff, and if you want powerfull pre and post processors, you should better choose groff. The actual minors incompatibility between groff, heirloom troff and plan9 troff is certainly a solution for some needs, but it is also a major problem for the whole troff community. Should'nt we begin the extension discussion by a discussion about the "state of the art" in the troff land ? Cheers, Pierre-Jean.
