+.bP
+A few platforms such as FreeBSD recognize termcap names rather
+than terminfo capability names in their respective \fB@TPUT@\fP commands.
+Since 2010, NetBSD's \fBtput\fP uses terminfo names.
+Before that, it (like FreeBSD) recognized termcap names.
+.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
+Most implementations which provide support for \fIcapname\fR operands
+use the \fItparm\fP function to expand parameters in it.
+That function expects a mixture of numeric and string parameters,
+requiring \fB@TPUT@\fP to know which type to use.
+This implementation uses a table to determine that for
+the standard \fIcapname\fR operands, and an internal library
+function to analyze nonstandard \fIcapname\fR operands.
+Other implementations may simply guess that an operand containing only digits
+is intended to be a number.