Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Per Starbäck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I suggest sometimes [in particular in Info] using a display table >> where [`'] are replaced by >> > U+2018 LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK and >> > U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK.
> we've been having similar discussions several times already, and > they always ended with the same result: the current status quo. > Markus Kuhn's crusade against `..' is well known, and so are > Richard's objections to it. Why waste any more time on this? I may have missed some of those earlier discussions, but then I think they are easy to miss, because I've tried to look for them now, and I've found no crusade and no objections from Richard. The primary discussion I found was one in 2003. Then display table was set to use U+2018, U+2019 for `' in international/mule-cmds.el, but three months later Kenichi Handa cancelled that. In emacs-dev discussion Handa-san wrote > I think `' should not be displayed by U+2018 and U+2019. > Unicode defines them not as balanced quotes. Using them as > balanced quotes is abuse of characters as far as we follow > Unicode. > > Considering the long standing convention, I don't suggest to > stop this abuse. But, at least, we should not disturb > people who use those characters correctly in the sense of > Unicode by displaying them with characters of different > semantics. I totally agree with that. When I write a character in a buffer I want to see that character. (Also "left single quotation mark" and "right single quotation mark" are often too similar to each other.) But Info-mode isn't about showing what I write. It's purpose is presenting Info files in a nice manner for humans. Just like that might mean not showing "*note foo::" as "*note foo::" or underlining "========" as "========" that might mean not showing "`" as "`". In the September 2003 discussion James Clark was the first to suggest doing a mapping only in buffers displaying documentation. Jason Rumney answered > I initially thought this too, then it occured to me that there are a > lot of lisp examples in the documentation, so the mapping could > cause confusion. which is a good counterargument I hadn't thought of. As far as I can see there was no consensus pro or against such a selective mapping, and there certainly was no veto from Richard, who instead asked what was dubious with the original change when it was questioned. So I don't agree that this issue was a clear waste of time where everything already has been beaten to death, but I won't pursue it any further. (I will probably install a mapping for Info-mode for my users anyway. Info-mode in Emacs 22 does such a good job of presenting Info files for humans, so I think it might be possible to actually get my users to use it, which has been really hard with Emacs 21.) -- Per Starback "Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!" _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
