On 2011-09-12 13:18, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: > > > Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:09, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) >> <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: >>> I wish I understood more about the "duplicate apostophe" problem, in order >>> to be able to offer a more directly relevant (and constructive) comment : >>> Google throws up nothing relevant. >> Users type ' (U+0027) and expect the proper apostrophe (U+2019) to >> show up in final PDF. Knuth just replaced the character (you cannot >> get U+0027 in pdfTeX, except in typewriter font). In XeTeX >> mapping=tex-text does that, but not all users use that one, so we need >> to support both variants. > > OK, (sort of) understood. But does a Unicode-aware user /really/ type > (U+0027) > [APOSTROPHE] if if he/she wants (U+0219) [ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK] > other than through habit/laziness ? I can quite see an ASCII-based TeX user > doing > just that, but those that are capable of entering real Unicode must surely be > aware > of the multiplicity of apostrophe-like characters [1] available to them, and > be capable > of choosing the correct one, must they not ?
Hi all, Copy and paste from applications such as MS Word™®© which can do automatic replacement of U+0027 to U+0219 might introduce these characters somewhere in the process. so unfortunately many users are not aware that this is happening. For this reason the Dutch hyphenation patterns are allowing both but is preferring U+0027. Regards, Pander > > ** Phil. > -------- > [1] Including, but not restricted to, APOSTROPHE, RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK, > LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK, PRIME, MODIFIER LETTER PRIME, > SINGLE HIGH-REVERSED-9 QUOTATION MARK, ... > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
