On Sat, Sep 02, 2017, Blake McBride wrote: > Second, I don't think troff is gaining in popularity. The contrary is, > Lastly, as stated by others, troff has a substantial history. Significant > changes in troff could invalidate most of the old documents leaving troff > with no usage base, and a poor tool at rendering all of the troff documents > out there.
When we were drafting a mission statement for groff in 2014, we all agreed that backward compatibility would remain a top priority. Troff's very long history stands as a functioning proof-of-concept that continued backward compatibility is no impediment to the contemporary use of software, no matter its age. Groff needs to stick to its guns, if for no other reason than to prove the rest of the world wrong in this regard. -- Peter Schaffter http://www.schaffter.ca
