Hi Ingo, thanks for your in-depth answer!
> 3. In case you are talking about the third column "Unicode" > in said table, which contains "u003D_0338" even though > groff actually produces U+2260: > That looks like a documentation bug to me. I'm not > sending a patch because there are many such composite > Unicode names in that column, so i suspect this is not > the only one mismatching reality. This is actually what I meant. Why not simply write u2260 instead of u003D_0338 in groff_char.7. Thank you for answering it! Carsten
