URL:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67865>
Summary: bug in sv geometry, or documentation thereof
Group: GNU roff
Submitter: None
Submitted: Sat 27 Dec 2025 01:49:56 AM UTC
Category: Core
Severity: 3 - Normal
Item Group: Documentation
Status: None
Privacy: Public
Assigned to: None
Open/Closed: Open
Discussion Lock: Unlocked
Planned Release: None
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comments:
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat 27 Dec 2025 01:49:56 AM UTC By: Anonymous
In http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2025-11/msg00038.html (thread continues in
http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2025-12/msg00024.html), onf pointed out that the
.sv and .os requests in groff behave differently from those in Plan 9 and
Heirloom troffs. This is a strong indication that groff also behaves
differently from AT&T troff.
Questions remain:
* Does groff in fact differ from AT&T troff here?
* Which behavior makes more sense?
* Should this be documented as a difference between the troffs, or should
groff's behavior be changed to match the other troffs?
* If groff's behavior is to change, should that be only in compatibility mode?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67865>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
