Hi Branden, > > Or don't add the dependency that needs maintaining? > > Huh. I'd make the "doesn't need maintaining" argument to support what > I already have, not your revision.
It does need maintaining, despite all the disclaimers in advance to it being out of date, because there's little point to it being a complete list otherwise. An editor will see the list, check if it's still up to date, and maintain it. > > I've always understood it was a contraction of `GNU troff', and roff > > was in no way a direct influence on its name or behaviour; troff > > and nroff were copied. > > The existing groff documentation is largely consistent in referring to > "roff" as the language, I'm talking specifically about the source of the word "groff", not all the uses of the word roff that litter. CSTR 54 doesn't mention `roff' IIRC, e.g. to refer to the language. GNU groff wasn't an FSF implementation of roff, but troff, etc. Perhaps it's Bernd coinage. -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy
