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: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:39:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <73362ea7-c190-469f-baa8-d69eea0c5637@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> <7294941d-a7c4-469c-9203-7949b2e34f0b@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 1451327976 32750 80.91.229.3 (28 Dec 2015 18:39:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:39:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?utf-8?B?UGVyIFN0YXJiw6Rjaw==?= , Emacs Developers To: Nikolai Weibull Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 28 19:39:24 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 1aDchX-0003PA-GF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:39:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45819 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDchW-0002mt-Rx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:39:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60332) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDchR-0002jA-W2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:39:19 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDchO-000551-Oy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:39:17 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:20467) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDchO-00054x-IO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:39:14 -0500 Original-Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id tBSId9EF030698 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:39:09 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBSId8aK019913 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:39:08 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0004.oracle.com (abhmp0004.oracle.com [141.146.116.10]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBSId8j5016827; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:39:08 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: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] 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:197027 Archived-At: > >> > 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 I never said it was "clear cut" - I said "I don't > > think so", and I _asked_ what Per thought. >=20 > No, you asked, then you _told_ him what _you_ thought. Yes, what I _think_. And I still think so, even given your welcome guess that it might not be so true for British writers as for Americans. I never said or suggested that it was clear cut or obvious. On this, so far, all has been only conjecture. The real question (to Per) was whether there is evidence for the claim that ' is part of Unicode only for quotation-mark compatibility and not for compatibility between quotation mark and apostrophe, in spite of its Unicode character name (which is APOSTROPHE). I added the subsidiary question about main past typewriter and computer use because I do _think_ that ' has probably been used more as apostrophe, which would tend to support its incorporation into Unicode (with the name APOSTROPHE!) for compatibility that includes apostrophe. I would think that claiming that the name is a mistake or inaccurate wrt the intention, would call for some support. Even an exchange in a Unicode mailing list where someone suggests that the name is misguided would offer support. > There=E2=80=99s a rather large difference between the two in how I, as a = reader, > interpret what you wrote, so even if you intended to say what you said > you intended, that=E2=80=99s not how a reader would understand it. Do you see anywhere where I said or suggested that this question is clear cut? I'm writing pretty fast, to keep up with the friendly replies of several of you ;-), but I don't think I ever suggested such a thing by what I've written. If I did, let me correct that impression by emphasizing: It is my _guess_ that most of the occurrences of ' (ASCII apostrophe) "in old-fashioned plain text, whether typewriter or computer" are for uses as apostrophe and not as closing quotation mark. On this particular (not so important) question, we are all just guessing, so far. (And BTW, I did not ask Per for evidence wrt this extra question, but only what he thinks.) > I didn=E2=80=99t reply to create further reasons for argument in > this thread, so I=E2=80=99m sorry if that=E2=80=99s been the result. The thread has been a bit contentious at times. Apparently this is a hot button. I don't think anyone has tried to get excited about the question, but arguments have not always remained 100% cool and logical. I'm not a linguist or a Unicode expert. As one Emacs user, I support Eli's decision to use ' and not =E2=80=99 in *scratch*. I don't think that Emacs must necessarily follow what Unicode "prefers" wrt using a given character as an apostrophe, but it can make up its own mind, which can be context-dependent and which should (hopefully) take Emacs's own needs as a text editor and programming environment into consideration. > I think the point you=E2=80=99ve > raised in regard to U+2019 not being an especially well chosen > apostrophe is valid and that U+02BC was, perhaps, a better choice. In > the end, they went with what was easier for software current at the > time to handle, thus falling victim for the same sins that their > forebears did. And yes, there are real problems with using U+02BC currently (e.g., tool and font support), which make it not a good choice for Emacs either. (I did not suggest that Emacs use it as such.) > That said, continuing to use the worst of the three (U+0027) > is not something that I agree with. Maybe we can agree to disagree about that. I don't think it is the worst in general - for Emacs, primarily because of its much greater ease of use. Reading about the problems of text-processing systems in dealing with U+2019 for things like spelling (it is not a character that is considered part of a word), and seeing the hoops that we are now trying to jump through with Emacs to support search & replace for it properly, does not make me confident that we should be broadcasting it everywhere now as our apostrophe. There is urgency to completely support Unicode for users. And Emacs has pretty much done that. And it will be good to further support Unicode by improving search and replace that involves such characters. But there should be no urgency to impose such characters on users in contexts where we do not need to at present. And *scratch* is a perfect example of such a context. (IMHO)