From: Hans Aberg (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Feb 03 2007 - 13:34:43 CST
On 3 Feb 2007, at 16:29, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> Aren't you lead stray by the poor renderings usually given to U+0027?
> No, the common renderings of U+0027 are correct.
The Unicode set does not come with renderings, I think.
> The glyphs are suitable for the two reasonable uses of U+0027:
> 1) In computer languages where it belongs to the language itself,
> by definition, typically as a quotation mark.
> 2) In legacy data and in new data written for a limited-repertoire
> environment where U+0027 is used as a replacement for left or right
> single quotation mark, prime, modifier letter left half ring,
> modifier letter right half ring, or some other loosely "apostrophe-
> like" character that was or is not available.
>> As it is semantically an apostrophe,
> No, U+0027 is a semantically vague, multi-purpose character with a
> (partly) misleading Unicode name.
>> it should be used when an apostrophe is called for; not U+2019
> No, the Unicode standard clearly says that U+2019 is preferred as
> punctuation apostrophe. The character U+0027 should have a neutral
> (vertical) glyph, and usually has, though in some fonts it's
> slighly slanted.
Well, the apostrophe used in language is not semantically a right
single quotation mark. There might be some subtle rendering
differences between a U+2019 and a proper, linguistic apostrophe,
like in spacing.
And if U+0027 is a multipurpose character, then a there is a gap in
the Unicode character set.
And then: a new character should added.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 03 2007 - 13:37:26 CST