Hi,
Doug wrote:
> Still, this is a cautionary tale. What other sorts of
> documents would suffer badly under this change?
groff_char(7) here currently contains
Output Input PostScript Unicode Notes
...
\[oq] \e[oq] quoteleft u2018 single open (left) quote
\[cq] \e[cq] quoteright u2019 single closing (right) quote
and renders as
Output Input PostScript Unicode Notes
...
` \[oq] quoteleft u2018 single open (left) quote
' \[cq] quoteright u2019 single closing (right) quote
That «`» would become a «'». Technically correct, that is the new
`Output', but hides some history and may make things less clear.
Ingo, you originally mentioned
However, the -T ascii output device still renders \(oq as "accent
grave", also affecting macro packages that implement single quoting
macros in terms of \(oq, for example mdoc(7) .Sq.
If it's the `modern' mdoc output that's primarily of concern, could its
macros that use \(oq make a subjective choice to pretty it up for
-Tascii and -Tlatin1? I doubt many worry about old mdoc source
rendering differently over time. :-) And it would leave the rest of
the world alone for those of us with symmetric «`'», old documents, and
groff_char(7).
--
Cheers, Ralph.
