From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/33495 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Pinard?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: \201 irritation! :-) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:40:28 -0500 (EST) Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <20001127134028.44631F705@titan.progiciels-bpi.ca> References: <00Aug28.151432edt.115218@gateway.intersys.com> <00Aug28.173634edt.115213@gateway.intersys.com> <200009051429.PAA09826@djlvig.dl.ac.uk> <200009082240.XAA16800@djlvig.dl.ac.uk> <87n1h86w6a.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <200009181407.PAA02748@djlvig.dl.ac.uk> <87wvg7roi1.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <871ywi31rj.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035169591 25455 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:06:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:06:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai =?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?=), ding@gnus.org Return-Path: Original-Received: from spinoza.math.uh.edu (spinoza.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.18]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55550D049A for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:42:25 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by spinoza.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAB06260; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 07:42:14 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Mon, 27 Nov 2000 07:41:27 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@66-209.196.61.interliant.com [209.196.61.66] (may be forged)) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00113 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 07:41:15 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from titan.progiciels-bpi.ca (unknown [199.84.132.86]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2882D049A for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:41:33 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: by titan.progiciels-bpi.ca (Postfix, from userid 405) id 44631F705; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:40:28 -0500 (EST) Original-To: Florian Weimer X-Face: "b_m|CE6#'Q8fliQrwHl9K,]PA_o'*S~Dva{~b1n*)K*A(BIwQW.:LY?t4~xhYka_.LV?Qq `}X|71X0ea&H]9Dsk!`kxBXlG;q$mLfv_vtaHK_rHFKu]4'<*LWCyUe@ZcI6"*wB5M@[m User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.0.91 Original-Lines: 39 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:33495 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:33495 [Florian Weimer] > Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > > > BTW: Please do not abuse GRAVE ACCENT (U+0060) as quotation mark. > > > Thanks. Where did you get that this is an abuse? ASCII meant it as symmetric to acute accent, and so does Unicode, by leaving the grave accent and especially the apostrophe as ambiguous as either an apostrophe or an acute accent. There are separate, more specific Unicode points for non-ambiguous usage. My feeling is that people are tempted to consider it as an abuse, because they use fonts in which the apostrophe stands right, instead of being symmetrical to U+0060. They should rather consider the fonts as wrong, since the symmetry is not preserved. The fonts should be corrected, not the usage. > The code which renders the help messages would have to be changed, > nothing else. This is being done in some places. Some make a great fuss around all this. > I think using these characters in source code (TeX, Texinfo, Lisp, > Shell) is acceptable, but presenting them to the user should be > reconsidered (at least in a few years, when Unicode fonts are in more > widespread use, so you can use the quotation mark characters from > the,). So called Unicode fonts should be ASCII fonts for that little part where Unicode and ASCII coincide. Of course, if you make Unicode to differ from ASCII in that region, you create yourself, and everybody, a lot of problems. Many people frantically want to go Unicode. But strangely, some are reluctant to Unicode outside the first 127 characters, and want things to be changed consequently. It would better if Unicode people were using Unicode, while leaving ASCII alone. Moreover, it was meant that way. -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard