Re: ASCII-only startup message?

["Per Starbäck" <per@starback.se>]

>> 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".

As I've already written, a lot confusion comes from the bad name the ascii '
has in Unicode. Avoid that confusion.

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. There are arguments for and
against that, and you quote a lot of people who are for it, but how is
that relevant? Maybe I agree with the arguments, maybe I don't, and I
won't tell, because it doesn't matter. We are not going to create a
new emacs-reformed-unicode character set now, we are implementing
something that exists, and that very clearly says that U+2018 and
U+2019 are the preferred characters to use for English paired
quotation marks, and U+2019 is also the preferred character to use for
apostrophe.

> 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?

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.

> To be clear, I am NOT arguing that _Emacs_ should use U+02BC
> instead of U+0219 as apostrophe.  I argue that 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 much easier for users
> (and programs) to work with.

I think mixing typewriter text and nice-looking text in the same
buffer is the worst option. A typographical hotchpotch jarring. It
would be same kind of error as using straight ascii "" for inner
quotes inside curly outside quotes or vice versa.