> Do you mean in the input or in the output? Right now, `...' in the
> input has two purposes.
> (1) It is used as a poor-man's substitute for inline code snippets –
> the thing Nikhil is talking.
> (2) It is *really* used for quotations, i.e., `foo' should be
> converted to ‘foo’. Note that I prefer ‘foo’ over “foo”, since it
> is less intrusive to my eyes.
> This should be disentangled. However, I don't want to throw away (2)
Should I look at only changing inline code blocks, or all quotes (in input),
If you want to retain (2) in the input, that will not be a problem because
we can change it in the output. Further, using 'foo' directly in input
also not cause any problems.
Also, in the output, should we retain ‘ and ’ (‘... ’ ) or
I change those to just single quotes ('..')?
> Do we have to change the quote style or your scripts can do it?
> While the majority of `...' is case (1), we have a lot of (2) also.
> In other words, a fully automated conversion is not possible IMHO.
It seems like there are 981 instances of quoted text in the docs.
I will try to come up with a method to automate this, if possible.
We can always do a manual cleanup later.
> BTW, there is a buglet in the conversion script: Have a look at the
> `note' section of
> The current code in the header file starts with
> Because `*aglyph->advance.x' and '*aglyph->advance.y' are 16.16 ...
> Note how the stuff between the two `*' gets incorrectly converted to
> italics in the HTML output.
Will fix this, thanks.
Freetype-devel mailing list