[bug #58930] take baby steps toward Unicode

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #23, bug #58930 (project groff):

A few nits about specific definitions:

[comment #21 comment #21:]
> +.fchar \[u2000] \h'1n' \" en quad
> +.fchar \[u2001] \h'1m' \" em quad
> +.fchar \[u2002] \h'1n' \" en space
> +.fchar \[u2003] \h'1m' \" em space

As the "quad" and "space" forms are canonically equivalent (see
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2003-m04/0316.html), might it be
better DRYwise to define one in terms of the other?

> +.fchar \[u2016] || \" double vertical line (matrix norm)

This one presents a kerning issue: if two U+2016s are set next to each other,
they should have a little space between them.  (In typeset output I've found
\| sufficient to make ersatz U+2016s defined as two U+007Cs not look like an
unbroken row of bars.  In terminal (or any monospace) output, if the font has
no U+2016, a full space becomes the only way to distinguish two U+2016s
defined as above from four U+007Cs.)

> +.fchar \[u2018] ` \" left single quotation mark
> +.fchar \[u2019] ' \" right single quotation mark

Defining these as \[oq] and \[cq] seems more semantically meaningful (and less
prone to failure, e.g. if the user has ".tr"ed ` to something else).

> +.fchar \[u201C] \[lq] \" left single quotation mark
> +.fchar \[u201D] \[rq] \" right single quotation mark

These definitions are fine, but the comments say "single" where they mean
"double."

> +.fchar \[u2025] .\|. \" two dot leader
> +.fchar \[u2026] .\|.\|. \" horizontal ellipsis

With the internal space between the dots, consecutive versions of these will
also typeset poorly.

> +.fchar \[u203D] \z?! \" interrobang

Per bug #62983, this one might be sequestered behind an ".if t".


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?58930>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/