+Since 2010, NetBSD's \fBtput\fP uses terminfo names.
+Before that, it (like FreeBSD) recognized termcap names.
+.IP
+Beginning in 2021, FreeBSD uses the ncurses \fBtput\fP,
+configured for both terminfo (tested first) and termcap (as a fallback).
+.PP
+Because (apparently) \fIall\fP of the certified Unix systems
+support the full set of capability names, the reasoning for documenting
+only a few may not be apparent.
+.bP
+X/Open Curses Issue 7 documents \fBtput\fP differently, with \fIcapname\fP
+and the other features used in this implementation.
+.bP
+That is, there are two standards for \fBtput\fP:
+POSIX (a subset) and X/Open Curses (the full implementation).
+POSIX documents a subset to avoid the complication of including X/Open Curses
+and the terminal capabilities database.
+.bP
+While it is certainly possible to write a \fBtput\fP program
+without using curses,
+none of the systems which have a curses implementation provide
+a \fBtput\fP utility which does not provide the \fIcapname\fP feature.
+.PP
+X/Open Curses Issue 7 (2009) is the first version to document utilities.
+However that part of X/Open Curses does not follow existing practice
+(i.e., Unix features documented in SVID 3):
+.bP
+It assigns exit code 4 to \*(``invalid operand\*('',
+which may be the same as \fIunknown capability\fP.
+For instance, the source code for Solaris' xcurses uses the term
+\*(``invalid\*('' in this case.
+.bP
+It assigns exit code 255 to a numeric variable that is not specified in
+the terminfo database.
+That likely is a documentation error,
+confusing the \fB\-1\fP written to the standard output for an absent
+or cancelled numeric value versus an (unsigned) exit code.
+.PP
+The various Unix systems (AIX, HPUX, Solaris) use the same exit-codes
+as ncurses.
+.PP
+NetBSD curses documents different exit codes which do not correspond
+to either ncurses or X/Open.