From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Per_Starb=C3=A4ck?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ASCII-only startup message? Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:27:38 +0100 Message-ID: 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 1451244467 15063 80.91.229.3 (27 Dec 2015 19:27:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:27:47 +0000 (UTC) To: "emacs-devel@gnu.org" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 27 20:27:46 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 1aDGyn-0006y4-RR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:27:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42514 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDGyn-0004tN-3N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:27:45 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48590) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDGyi-0004sz-T2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:27:41 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDGyh-0006pF-N0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:27:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-vk0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]:36694) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDGyh-0006p7-Iq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:27:39 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-vk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id f2so132931921vkb.3 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:27:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ldF06R0AhTip7cSKeni8R48hZDwASPlyBD0wgcMyXes=; b=PKW1DuFjij3uyduEsEm4+8WiaG8nAHAp9PmXPEo0ZGNj8Rsne1aXwkpTxw4Xl45x9q w7KLlFRLqJ+8Rd91VvLDmXfkvPncm3Dy9vJJFqNSUbb2REc8lCzZ0dixDaFtc+6jOPHE w8zcxvMthACsEX/MqbTcUD7ArIyZHWdN5xo6XSouD82f6toWBjMuTgp571in1iuBo9AM 7RxUwTgExE/LqBB8v4gidHfn0ntSa5ZdvkgzTpsuv3SfTZyPvsUS7hij/qDE8BcqrDQH 6uekPvRRrBR1HZz4gFbbGlJ9YghbcpWbf3w1UDuFO6C5kQcwrLkOE1HrePGEAGii9/ov tG9g== X-Received: by 10.31.11.204 with SMTP id 195mr33781392vkl.23.1451244459053; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:27:39 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.31.15.134 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:27:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <9e93866e-c6a4-42e3-b8b2-70fd6185b25e@default> X-Google-Sender-Auth: nezISPwWyo4TmdmJ09T063QPwTA X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230 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:196983 Archived-At: >> That one character has several meanings, as the exclamation mark >> "!" also means factorial doesn't mean it needs to be seen as two >> characters. > > Correct. It does not imply that it NEEDS to be seen as two > characters. But it also does not imply that it NEEDS to be > seen as the one and the same character. > Consider the apostrophe and the prime mark. You could argue > that they do not NEED to be seen as separate characters. But > the (better) choice was made to use separate chars for them. No, only out of ignorance could you argue that, since they don't even look the same. Please recognize that typography is much older than computers, and that the "choice" that those should be different characters goes back a long time. It's not something that anyone alive when the Unicode consortium was founded has had any input on. For most characters (included all mentioned in this post) the correct chronology is this: (1) there is a bunch of characters, used in writing and typesetting (2) some technology (typewriters, computers) create some new ersatz characters that are used as several "real" characters, for simplicity sake (3) later technology creates bigger character sets that have all those characters. Of course the "ersatz characters" still exist as well, and it is they that have special syntactic meanings in programming languages etc. (Also people often use keep using them in typed text since it's easier to enter, as I do in this text for example.) You keep arguing as if step (1) didn't exist, that the ascii characters are the original characters and the Unicode consortium then decides to split some of them up more or less arbitrarily. > Unicode made choices, and no doubt good ones. But they are > *choices*: same char for different uses of !, same char for > different uses of =E2=80=99, but different chars for different uses > of =E2=88=92 and -. There *are* certainly some interesting choices made, but these are not. All of your examples are established since a long time before computers even existed. You think "different uses of ~ and -" only because you have been conditioned by typewriters and computers (probably primarily the latter) into thinking there is *one* character "-" that is used in various ways. > Or consider character HYPHEN-MINUS (U+002D), character HYPHEN > (U+2010), and character MINUS SIGN (U+2212). > > You might say that the first of these is analogous to the ASCII > apostrophe (U+0027) - it is essentially for compatibility. 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". It is also analogous to ASCII " which is a compatibility character between primarily "left double quotation mark" and "right double quotation mark" (but also for less common characters like "double prime"). I've cut down on quotations. This can have a tendency to run away into what isn't relevant. What *is* relevant is that there is common misconception that ASCII ' someone is *more* correct as apostrophe than it is as a quotation character. It just isn't. In "lazy" typewritten text (like this), by all means use ' and ". In good-looking text they just aren't used. This is relevant for Emacs as it has been decided to sometimes show such "good-looking text".