The expression "modernize" in this context has a manipulative character. Who wants to be against "modernization"!
This issue is about a change, ( \(oq to ' for ascii and latin1 only ) which is 1) a falsification, namely changing directional quotes to undirectional ones. 2) making a distinction between directional and undirectional quotes impossible in the output (\(oq...\(cq and '...' become the same but are meant to be different). 3) a regression, as the \(oq (quoteleft) is then no longer displayed as usual. `...' in a roff-file is now the the same as \(oq...\(cq. There is a proposition where there is a choice between for or against. That has a manipulative character, so that people are made to believe there is no other choice(s). Nobody has mentioned any other choice on the list! The issue makes no distinction between writing and displaying. When \(oq is written, it is meant to be something else than ' (quotesingle or quoteright). When ` is written, it is meant to be that (left single quote). There is a distinction between pure text and text with typographic characters and formatting commands. People that don't like or tolerate ` as a left single quote in the output, may change the output for themselves (using a filter or a private tmac-file), and should, may not change it for others. From groff(1): The groff system has all features of the classical roff, but adds many extensions. The true reason for the change is not revealed (what exactly did the original "complainer" say?). -- Bjarni I. Gislason
