[bug #62233] [doc] Stop referring to Roff as a group of languages

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #62233 (project groff):

I do see your point, but I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea that the lack of a
formal spec constitutes grounds for considering the various roff
implementations as each a separate language unto itself.  They seem more akin
to dialects: someone who knows one dialect can pretty easily make sense of a
document written in another.  (If that "someone" is a person.  Computers are
less forgiving, but this is inherent in the rigidity of algorithms; C code
that uses gcc extensions might fail to compile on other C compilers, but no
one seems to be clamoring to call such code a separate language.)  The sheer
amount of effort that most modern troffs put into reproducing even the most
absurd aspects of Unix V7 troff seems to argue that they're all seeking to
speak a common tongue.

I appreciate your wanting to be as accurate as possible.  But does sticking to
strict accuracy here obscure a deeper truth about the basic commonalities of
all the roff variants?


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?62233>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/