Follow-up Comment #15, bug #63354 (project groff): Yeah, this ticket is chockablock with to-do items, but they're sprinkled across several comments and interspersed with a couple of blind alleys. So here's a checklist of tasks.
1. reorder file ([comment #0 original submission]) 2. consistently comment file ([comment #0 original submission]) 3. comment out \[u200B] until bug #58958 resolved (comment #5) 4. permanently remove \[u2010] (comment #8) 5. potentially defer \[u2011] until bug #63360 resolved (comment #10) 6. fix \[u2012] ([comment #0 original submission]; correction in comment #13) 7. refine \[u2016] definition for robustness ([comment #0 original submission]) 8. comment out \[u2018], \[u2019], \[u201C], and \[u201D] until bug #59932 resolved (comment #11) 9. permanently remove \[u2026] (comment #6) 10. add a \[u202F] fallback (comment #4) 11. give \[u203D] an nroff fallback (comment #9, as amended by comment #12) 12. refine \[u2052] definition for robustness ([comment #0 original submission]) Every one of these involves an alteration to commit 132182bd <http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=132182bd>, which was added since 1.22.4, so for 1.23 purposes, the pertinent question is: which changes make things better as-is, and which make things worse, since the last release? Obviously, "better" and "worse" are subjective. But I'm gonna go ahead and pretend they aren't, and further pretend that I'm the final arbiter, and pass judgment on every item above. 1. Refactor only. Irrelevant to 1.23. 2. Refactor only. Irrelevant to 1.23. 3. Should be done before 1.23, since the the current definition is broken, and groff has a long-established escape for doing this. 4. Not important to 1.23 (though OTOH removing the line is trivial so why not). 5. Should be done before 1.23: while it's a shame to not be able to support U+2011, the subpar rendering is worth addressing before it's unleashed onto the world. 6. The fix to this is (probably) not trivial, but the current rendering is ugly, so this should be commented out before 1.23. 7. Should be done before 1.23: fix is simple and avoids plausible real-world problems. 8. Should be done before 1.23: these four have long-established groff aliases that do the right thing, while these fallbacks would degrade typography. 9. Should be done before 1.23: only degrades typography without any upside in real-world usage, since Symbol will always be there. 10. Not important to 1.23. 11. Not important to 1.23. 12. Probably not important to 1.23, mostly because there's no easy fix. The potential pitfall to the user is a seemingly inexplicable character substitution, but U+2052 is obscure enough that I don't see much practical risk. These opinions are correct and incontrovertible. I have spoken. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63354> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
