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 02:09:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <9275c9dd-8a96-4011-8f43-817009103ea1@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=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451297385 10565 80.91.229.3 (28 Dec 2015 10:09:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:09:45 +0000 (UTC) To: Random832 , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 28 11:09:33 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 1aDUk8-0001oM-Rr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:09:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44066 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDUk8-0003KQ-2t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 05:09:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42200) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDUjq-0003Gj-37 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 05:09:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDUjl-0003Kc-2R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 05:09:14 -0500 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:35313) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDUjk-0003KU-RO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 05:09:08 -0500 Original-Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id tBSA95Am006749 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:09:05 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBSA95mt030716 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:09:05 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0002.oracle.com (abhmp0002.oracle.com [141.146.116.8]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBSA95Xn009442; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:09:05 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: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 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:197003 Archived-At: > > 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. >=20 > Drew Adams writes: > > These are (should be) different animals and > > they need not always have the same glyphs. >=20 > As long as we're on the subject of whose claims are assertions without > evidence, can you produce a single example of a system that actually > supported using different glyphs for these (apart from the typewriter > glyph, which isn't typographically appropriate for anything), and what > those glyphs might have looked like? I never made such a claim. Not only have I not said that the glyphs need to be different or have been different, I have explicitly said that the glyphs can be the same even when the uses are different. They could be (yes it's a choice) considered different characters based on their different uses, and not on their different appearances. What I have said is that an apostrophe is not a quotation mark. They have different jobs. An apostrophe is used within a word. Quotation marks are used around/between words. Here is one linguist's interesting take, BTW: the apostrophe is the 27th English letter! The apostrophe is not a punctuation mark. It doesn't punctuate. Punctuation marks are placed between units (sentences, clauses, phrases, words, morphemes) to signal structure, boundaries, or pauses. The apostrophe appears within words. It's a 27th letter of the alphabet. This issue concerns spelling. http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2013/03/22/being-an-apostrophe/ and http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3D2664 > And, lest we get off the subject, The reason not to use U+2019 or any > other non-ASCII character in the default scratch buffer text is because > the user may not be able to save it, not because the ASCII one is more > typographically or semantically appropriate. That is part of the argument I made more generally for ' (U+0027): ease of use by users of a text editor and programming environment. I am not the one arguing that it should be used because it is more beautiful (though I don't personally think it is less beautiful, in the default fonts and the fonts I use). Relative beauty was given as a reason only by those in favor of U+2019. I've been pretty clear that the reason to use it is to make life easier for users - in several ways.