Unsubscribe On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 12:02 PM <groff-requ...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Send groff mailing list submissions to > groff@gnu.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > groff-requ...@gnu.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > groff-ow...@gnu.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of groff digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: modernize -T ascii rendering of opening single quote > (Ingo Schwarze) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:38:55 +0100 > From: Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de> > To: groff@gnu.org > Subject: Re: [groff] modernize -T ascii rendering of opening single > quote > Message-ID: <20190206143855.gb21...@athene.usta.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi, > > Doug McIlroy wrote on Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 07:33:05PM -0500: > > > Ingo has recorded me as being opposed to rendering \(oq and \(cq > > the same in -T ascii. > > > > I had raised the issue of ` in m4 and shell scripts. However, it > > is good practice to make examples by pasting in working code, > > which can in turn be cut, especially from nroff-ed documents. > > > > The rendering of \(oq is irrelevant to this practice. > > > > For publishing m4 programs, however, it is really nice > > to have symmetrical left and right quotes. On asking around > > (and also in some of my own work), I find that people are > > very likely to use "changequote" to bracketing pairs such > > as {} [] <> and not to risk damaging the code by transliteration > > > > I conclude that my concern is very iffy. It should not be > > taken as a "no" vote. > > OK, that makes sense to me, thanks for clarifying. > I have updated the list and also added Colin (see at the end). > > So it still isn't a perfect consensus, in particular due to Mike's > strong opposition. > > I don't think the "backward compatibility" argument is actually > very strong in this particular context. The meaning of \(oq is > "opening quote", and that doesn't change. In most contexts, > representing an opening quote as ' is likely to be just fine. Even > in those (rare?) contexts where it may not be ideal, it only affects > -T ascii output, while arguably modes like PostScript and PDF are > critical for groff's typesetting quality. Everybody knows that > expressing typesetting in ASCII can only be a compromise in the > first place. > > The arguments that Ralph brought to the table have maybe not been > fully evaluated yet, see my last mail to him, so i'd be interested > in the outcome of that before a final decision. > > Yours, > Ingo > > > > For easy reference, here is an overview of the arguments concluded > so far, as i understood them: > > BENEFITS: > --------- > - stop relying on a historic meaning of ASCII 0c60 > that was never portable and that conflicts with Unicode > - compatibility with modern (Unicode-compatible) fonts > that treat ASCII 0x60 unambiguously as "accent grave" > (admittedly, people often use -Tutf8 together with those) > - but still useful when using LC_CTYPE=C temporarily, for example > in build system contexts or when logged into remote machines, > and for those people always using LC_CTYPE=C with modern fonts > - symmetry with the ASCII rendering of \(lq > - symmetry with groff error messages etc. > - compatibility with the GNU coding standards > https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Quote-Characters.html > (admittedly, for roff output, historic precendent may be more > important than GNU coding standards, so i give this argument last) > > DOWNSIDES: > ---------- > - may cause issues when post-processing -Tascii output with scripts > (but how many people do that, and rely specifically on quotes?) > - may break existing documents that incorrectly use \(oq to > specifically get the ASCII 0x60 ` output glyph > - looks worse with traditional fonts that provide an "opening quote" > glyph for ASCII 0x60 rather than an "accent grave" glyph > - typos of \(oq vs. \(cq are no longer obvious in ASCII output > (but ASCII is weak for detecting typos in the first place) > > > OPPOSED: > -------- > Mike Bianchi -- strongly opposed because he values backward > compatibility above all else > > NOT YET DECIDED OR NO OBVIOUS PREFERENCE: > ----------------------------------------- > Ralph Corderoy -- slightly sceptical, considers whether > preserving historical rendering has value, > and likes fonts rendering ` ' symmetrically > Werner Lemberg -- not quite explicit, but does not seem to > dislike ` ' in the first place > Doug McIlroy -- not opposed, > but did not express clear support either > > IN FAVOUR: > ---------- > Anthony Bentley -- clearly in favour > Bertrand Garrigues -- clearly in favour > Colin Watson -- in favour because it improves display of manual > pages remotely with LC_CTYPE=C while using a > modern font locally > Dave Kemper -- seems to not object > Ingo Schwarze -- in favour without feeling too strongly > Jason McIntyre -- would be OK with changing it > Jeff Conrad -- clearly in favour > Ted Unangst -- would be happy with the change > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > groff mailing list > groff@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff > > > ------------------------------ > > End of groff Digest, Vol 172, Issue 8 > ************************************* >
