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 15:17:24 +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> 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 1451225851 10415 80.91.229.3 (27 Dec 2015 14:17:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:17:31 +0000 (UTC) To: "emacs-devel@gnu.org" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 27 15:17:31 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 1aDC8Z-0006mn-3Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 15:17:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41734 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDC8Y-00039H-8t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 09:17:30 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54054) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDC8U-000388-CJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 09:17:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDC8T-0002Wx-EU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 09:17:26 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-vk0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235]:36726) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDC8T-0002WI-9d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 09:17:25 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-vk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id f2so131417253vkb.3 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 06:17:25 -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=Ud1XYu57oJ4+M8v/XmXsAX9b/mIqS5Yb/AEqXYEYEWs=; b=qrz0xc7+q+eoE4uvlG4fPvaLQ2heYs3aWx+aTZG3teZhkok5F4v270LJMcAVFhx6jM ewMPESXtBV5IiK9lAQ6NIH5GJ6phm+yk9NJnbVStf20dsdrhTv2gNZBfg6kqXE1+EGlM 5g1JU9b9qZAWBJNjtSRUvOkp1DbNq6JAdDbZY6jmXv0JH99mBZwDwnKMqzDsZV2P70u3 EqYDMdpbJky1g1l80V4wMR7efZBZsDLO2wZOW3B+QbIFa5pS4q+ltjggZiftWug1nO7N AH1E9UCaz5fjgOhH4/nS5Hh0yFoo8KaGqDXB09kXr4BR51urtDqVUDeehSWNM+nb0DOg 8Kiw== X-Received: by 10.31.11.204 with SMTP id 195mr33109881vkl.23.1451225844671; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 06:17:24 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.31.15.134 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 06:17:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: oiGZGFahLP7YNhtBCYQleHQwCgM X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235 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:196971 Archived-At: >> I have never seen any doc or typography guideline that favors >> a quotation mark over an apostrophe for English contractions, >> possessives, or non-word plurals. Quite the contrary. These >> use cases are precisely the raison d'=C3=AAtre for the apostrophe. > > Er, the question isn't whether to use a quotation mark or an > apostrophe, it's whether to use a curved apostrophe or a > straight apostrophe. That Unicode happens to unify straight > apostrophe with straight single quote and curved apostrophe with > curved single quote isn't relevant. Right. And it is not primarily a Unicode thing, it is a typography thing. There are a few characters that owe their existance to typewriters which used less differentiation than you would use in writing or in setting text. In a real book (for example) you would never see the typewriter character ', but always a specific character, like a left-single or right-single or a prime character. Earlier it was a big difference between professional-looking (typeset) text and amateurish-looking typed text (or later printed on a line printer) with no inbetween. Straight apostrophes/quotes would only be seen in the later kind, and would be one of the tell-tale signs of something not done by a professional. But of course, when technology made it easier to produce nicer-looking output, the differences became muddled. Lots of text was produced with nice-looking fonts by people who didn't know anything about typgraphy. Text if often published in books more or less taken from output from word processors used by the authors, and more and more text is read online straight from authors you use the characters that are conveniently located on their keyboard (as I do here for example). Today you can see "typewriter" characters even in prestige books where there ought to be people involved who know better, so it doesn't surprise me that some people think that that is how an apostrophe actually looks. Unicode has muddles it further by bad names for these characters. I think ascii ' should have a name similar to ascii - (HYPHEN-MINUS) which shows that this is something used as a stand-in for several different characters.