On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 04:51:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 05:45:34PM +0200, Juerd wrote: > > Matthew Garrett skribis 2005-10-17 16:44 (+0100): > > > U+0027 is sufficiently overloaded with a large number of historical > > > meanings that it's preferable to use a more precise Unicode code point > > > wherever possible. > > > > U+2019, having two very different uses, isn't quite more precise. > > It does at least have the advantage that you know it's going to look > curly.
That's about as dumb as using <BLOCKQUOTE> in HTML for the indentation effect. From http://www.unicode.org/standard/principles.html: Interpreting Characters and Rendering Glyphs The difference between identifying a code point and rendering it on screen or paper is crucial to understanding the Unicode Standard's role in text processing. The character identified by a Unicode code point is an abstract entity, such as "LATIN CHARACTER CAPITAL A" or "BENGALI DIGIT 5." The mark made on screen or paper -- called a glyph -- is a visual representation of the character. The Unicode Standard does not define glyph images. The standard defines how characters are interpreted, not how glyphs are rendered. The software or hardware-rendering engine of a computer is responsible for the appearance of the characters on the screen. The Unicode Standard does not specify the size, shape, nor style of on-screen characters. If you want to send to something that looks curly, send me a PDF or an image. If you want to indicate you're contracting two words, use a apostrophe. And let *me* decide whether I want them straight or curly. Abigail
pgp3BvKDjCEQk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
