Re: [Groff] space width

[Pierre-Jean]

Peter Schaffter <address@hidden> 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.