From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Sat Feb 03 2007 - 06:13:07 CST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
To: <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: New translation posted
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
>> Also I would suggest replacing every vertical apostrophe-quote by an
>> oblique apostrophe (high comma, which should show as a wedge glyph in
>> sans-serif fonts, or as a 9-shaped glyph in serif fonts),
>
> I think you mean that U+0027 APOSTROPHE ("Ascii apostrophe") should be
> replaced by U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK ("typographer's
> apostrophe").
Yes of course; I just described what we see with common fonts (the wedge versus curly apostrophes is not a severe issue, and if so, this is still not the problem of the encoding of the Unicode pages themselves).
I wanted to use the description rather than the confusive normative names (which would be better if they had been reversed, but we won't change it now).
the wedged glyph is not so bad, even if it looks like a prime: actually the prime should not be not a wedge but looks like an elongated water drop with rounded borders (no angle), shown in superscript style, as described in maths notations (TeX) docs describing the intended layout.
> Yes, it should. U+0027 is not a correct apostrophe in any
> human language that I heard of, though some rumors say that in Danish, it
> is an officially accepted alternative to U+2019 - but I think that if some
> officials decided so, they didn't really understand the issue.
May be because U+2019 is used as a normal quotation mark (not in French that bormally use guillemots in double-chevrons). Note that in French Wikipédia, when articles are reviewed in their typography, the incorrect ASCII quotes are systematically replaced by U+2019 as they should be by some reviewers.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 03 2007 - 06:16:56 CST