Follow-up Comment #2, bug #62494 (project groff): [comment #1 comment #1:] > It also puts additional stress on manual page writers, who are often programmers with no particular interest in typesetting
That argument also goes both ways: programmers with an interest in typesetting should know better than to seek typographic integrity in a low-resolution, character-based display. Terminal fonts are less likely to have decent-looking glyphs for "fancy" punctuation than fonts designed for high-resolution output (e.g., print, web, PDFs, etc). Take macOS's default terminal font (Menlo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menlo_(typeface)>): (file #53237 Glyph comparison in macOS's Terminal.app) > ASCII 0x27 -> U+0027 apostrophe > ASCII 0x60 -> U+0060 grave Pleasing-looking quotes are a nice-to-have, but between fancier apostrophes and code samples that can be copy+pasted without the user needing to make corrections… I’ll take the latter. 😉 > Unfortunately, when i said this in the past, Branden strongly opposed my argument and not many others spoke up at all. I regret not being present for the discussion. :/ This is certainly something I should've weighed in on. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?62494> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
