> It's not a question of which implementation has the bigger market > share, but which has the richer feature set. Currently each of them > can do things the other can't.
There’s `.if [.g]` and `.if [.neat]` to test for a Groff or Neatroff environment, respectively. Presumably, Heirloom has a similar register. If we can’t count on each implementation to have all the features we’re using, we can at least code workarounds. I’m using neatroff for printed fiction, because it directly supports TrueType (including font features like small caps and extended ligatures) and paragraph- at-once justification. Still, I chafe at its low resolution (1/720in vs Groff’s 1/72000in), because some microtypography requires a bit more than 1/10pt precision. The macro set I use tries to accommodate either one. (For technical docs, I’ve moved to Lightweight DITA for a number of reasons that aren’t necessarily germane to this list.) — Larry
