Re: *roff `\~` support (was: [PATCH 4/6] xattr.7: wfix)

["DJ Chase" <u9000@posteo.mx>]

On Fri Aug 12, 2022 at 6:10 PM EDT, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> At 2022-08-12T16:30:01+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> > G. Branden Robinson wrote on Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 03:17:14PM -0500:
> > > At 2022-08-11T14:48:51+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> > >> The former is portable and the latter is a GNU extension.
> > 
> > > ...that is over 30 years old and supported by Heirloom Doctools
> > > troff for 17 years now, neatroff for about six, and your mandoc for
> > > three.
> > 
> > Actually, mandoc supports \~ at least since Sep 17 2009:
> > https://cvsweb.bsd.lv/mandoc/Attic/chars.in?rev=1.1&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
>
> Whoops!  I regret the error, and will update groff's Texinfo manual to
> correct this.
>
> > > plan9port troff doesn't either, and its laudable introduction
> > > of a man(7) MR macro notwithstanding, its activity level is
> > > not high.
> > 
> > There are people using Plan 9 for practical work though, they have
> > even occasionally posted on the groff and mandoc lists, so that is a
> > bit more of a problem.
>
> […] But, if
> that's what it takes to get this escape sequence de facto standardized,
> and no one else will do it, that will move it up the priority queue.

Have we ever considered a de jure *roff standard? If not, here are just
some reasons:

	•  [the obvious benefits of standardizing anything]
	•  A standard could lead to more implementations because
	   developers would not have to be intimately familiar with the
	   {groff,heirloom,neatroff} toolchain before implementing a
	   *roff toolchain themselves.
	•  It could also lead to more users & use cases because existing
	   users could count on systems supporting certain features, so
	   they could use *roff in more situations, which would lead to
	   more exposure.

Cheers,
-- 
DJ Chase
They, Them, Theirs

PS: It’s ridiculous that *roff isn’t part of POSIX when it was Unix’s
    killer feature.