Re: [Groff] Progress report on the portability audit -- and what to do about URLs?

[Werner LEMBERG]

> > > > I have not removed any instances of .URL or .MTO.
> > > 
> > > .URL and .MTO are not two-character names.
> >
> > I'm still missing something.  Are you saying that I should have
> > changed all of the existing instances of URL and MTO into
> > two-letter macros?
> 
> Yes.

I don't mind to use two-letter versions for those two macros.

> > If you tell me otherwise, then of course the portability
> > constraints just got narrower, and the changes I will have to make
> > to the groff manual pages will be more intrusive.  I was hoping to
> > avoid that.

Please bear in mind that it is not the goal of man pages which come
with the groff package to be readable by all Unix versions!  I'm
definitely *not* going to replace \[xx] with \(xx, for example.

The changes to the groff man pages I agree with is to use a unified
`man' interface to make doclifter's (and some viewer's) life easier.
Thus I don't see a need for more intrusive changes at all.


    Werner