Follow-up Comment #23, bug #58930 (project groff): A few nits about specific definitions:
[comment #21 comment #21:] > +.fchar \[u2000] \h'1n' \" en quad > +.fchar \[u2001] \h'1m' \" em quad > +.fchar \[u2002] \h'1n' \" en space > +.fchar \[u2003] \h'1m' \" em space As the "quad" and "space" forms are canonically equivalent (see http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2003-m04/0316.html), might it be better DRYwise to define one in terms of the other? > +.fchar \[u2016] || \" double vertical line (matrix norm) This one presents a kerning issue: if two U+2016s are set next to each other, they should have a little space between them. (In typeset output I've found \| sufficient to make ersatz U+2016s defined as two U+007Cs not look like an unbroken row of bars. In terminal (or any monospace) output, if the font has no U+2016, a full space becomes the only way to distinguish two U+2016s defined as above from four U+007Cs.) > +.fchar \[u2018] ` \" left single quotation mark > +.fchar \[u2019] ' \" right single quotation mark Defining these as \[oq] and \[cq] seems more semantically meaningful (and less prone to failure, e.g. if the user has ".tr"ed ` to something else). > +.fchar \[u201C] \[lq] \" left single quotation mark > +.fchar \[u201D] \[rq] \" right single quotation mark These definitions are fine, but the comments say "single" where they mean "double." > +.fchar \[u2025] .\|. \" two dot leader > +.fchar \[u2026] .\|.\|. \" horizontal ellipsis With the internal space between the dots, consecutive versions of these will also typeset poorly. > +.fchar \[u203D] \z?! \" interrobang Per bug #62983, this one might be sequestered behind an ".if t". _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?58930> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
