From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: ASCII-only startup message? Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:01:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7294941d-a7c4-469c-9203-7949b2e34f0b@default> References: <567ECD8C.1070408@cs.ucla.edu> <8360zlhy7x.fsf@gnu.org> <567EE043.9020109@cs.ucla.edu> <83y4chgh5q.fsf@gnu.org> <567EED47.1090700@cs.ucla.edu> <83si2pgci8.fsf@gnu.org> <567F22B1.9040702@cs.ucla.edu> <2dc99848-b6d5-4f53-b22c-66e29d15647c@default> <444c19cb-4687-41c4-8291-481f5b5a42a1@default> <9e93866e-c6a4-42e3-b8b2-70fd6185b25e@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451268132 32298 80.91.229.3 (28 Dec 2015 02:02:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 02:02:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?utf-8?B?UGVyIFN0YXJiw6Rjaw==?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 28 03:02:00 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aDN8J-0005JY-Ua for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 03:02:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43338 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDN8J-0003gq-CO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:01:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56155) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDN85-0003gT-NY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:01:47 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDN82-0006mX-GG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:01:45 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:38294) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDN82-0006mL-9Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:01:42 -0500 Original-Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id tBS21cb2028138 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 02:01:38 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBS21bpR001561 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 02:01:37 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0002.oracle.com (abhmp0002.oracle.com [141.146.116.8]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBS21aLP030673; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 02:01:37 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:196988 Archived-At: > >> Yes, that is true, but not for compatibility between "apostrophe" and > >> "right single quotation mark" as that imagined argument continues in > >> your post, but for compatibility between "left single quotation mark" > >> and "right single quotation mark" as well as less common characters > >> like "prime". > > > > Huh? The Unicode _name_ of character U+0027 is... "APOSTROPHE". > > And the Unicode "old name" of it is "APOSTROPHE-QUOTE". >=20 > As I've already written, a lot confusion comes from the bad name > the ascii ' has in Unicode. Avoid that confusion. So as the only demonstration of your claim that this character is not maintained in Unicode for compatibility between "apostrophe" and "right single quotation mark", you offer the statement that the name is wrong. Sheesh. You know, Unicode names have been updated more than once. How come no update here, if this character has nothing to do with apostrophe and is only about quotation-mark compatibility? Any evidence for your claim that ' is in Unicode only for compatibility between "left single quotation mark" and "right single quotation mark"? Do you think that is even the most common use case for ' in old-fashioned plain text, whether typewriter or computer? ", yes, but '? I don't think so. > And yes, there are some people who think that the squiggle used as > apostrophe and as right-single-quotation should be seen as two > different characters depending on usage. The basic argument is this: an apostrophe is not a quotation mark; their purposes/uses are different. And this is being revisited in 2015, a decade and a half after the choice was chiseled in stone. > We are not going to create a new emacs-reformed-unicode > character set now No one suggested otherwise. The question raised was whether a right curly quote mark should be used in *scratch* as apostrophe. > we are implementing something that exists, and that very clearly > says that ... U+2019 is also the preferred character to use for > apostrophe. Emacs has already implemented Unicode support. That is not in question. Dunno what you think "we are implementing" now. The *scratch* buffer text? As Eli has said: The Unicode recommendations should be taken with a grain of salt when applying them to Emacs, especially for major modes which aren't derived from Text mode. Unicode Standard is about typesetting and displaying plain text, it says that much in many places. And as I said in a related vein: Emacs should (continue to) use U+0027 (ASCII apostrophe) as apostrophe (in its own doc, *scratch* comments, and so on). Not because it is a more genuine apostrophe but because it is is much easier for users (and programs) to work with. Reading the recent controversy about the Unicode apostrophe "preference" (which is not a recommendation, AFAIK) on the Unicode mailing list points to even more problems with that preference than I was aware of, for users of text processing applications. Problems from bidi handling to inserting to spell-checking to searching... We certainly support the use of U+2019 any way someone wants to use it. But that does not mean we must plaster it everwhere. =20 > > Claiming that Unicode intends this character only for compatibility > > between "left single quotation mark", "right single quotation mark", > > and less common characters like "prime", and NOT for compatibility > > between "apostrophe" and "right single quotation mark" is, well, > > imaginative. Where do you get that notion? >=20 > Just imagine that Unicode hasn't been reformed you want, but that > there is one character that is used both as apostrophe and right > single quotation mark. Not because it's The Right Way, but because > then you will be able to read and understand what I wrote. Please, give me the benefit of the doubt that I am able to read and understand what you wrote. There's no need for condescension. I am not out to reform Unicode - that's a strawman. My purpose in this thread is to argue that U+2019 is not the best apostrophe choice for distributed-Emacs boilerplate text such as that used in comments, because it is harder for users to deal with. The best choice for that is U+0027 ('), plain old keyboard apostrophe. I've stated clearly more than once that I support the Unicode standard and am very glad that Emacs supports it. That does not mean that Emacs should use U+2019 (=E2=80=99) as apostrophe character in its boilerplate text. > I think mixing typewriter text and nice-looking text in the same > buffer is the worst option. A typographical hotchpotch jarring. There again we disagree. But even if we didn't - even granting your esthetic sensibility, the ease-of-use reason for plain ' far outweighs it, for me. And even for purely presentation and navigation purposes (i.e., no editing involved), as I mentioned, at least some technical doc and publishing systems, including those of large organizations with thousands of users, have deliberately opted for the simple ', because it is judged to be _easier on users_. Even to the extent of using QA tools that correct unintended =E2=80=99 to '. A fortiori for a text editor and programming environment such as Emacs. It's not just because we _can_ insert =E2=80=99 everywhere that we must do so. It's a judgment call, and depends on the context and use cases.