Re: <OK> Re: [Groff] changing .em behaviour?

[Denis M. Wilson]

My point was not "compatibility over all" but "do not break
existing scripts". The .em case is just an example, but as
until recently the only doc of non-groff requests was the AT&T
Bell Labs published Unix books (my troff "bible"), I believed
that unless stated otherwise (or discovered by experiment)
groff and otroff were the same. I'd also hoped for upward
compatibility as newer versions of groff appeared, but this
has not happened; I've spent much time fixing formerly
working material.

Denis

Mike Bianchi wrote:
> Denis makes a good point, but I wish to offer a counter argument.
>
> If the model of groff was "compatibility over all" I would agree with him.
> But, in my opinion, groff is not aiming for compatibility as the first
> requirement.
[cut]