[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: character sets as they relate to “Raw” string literals for elisp

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: character sets as they relate to “Raw” string literals for elisp
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 19:00:31 +0300

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 10:48:09 -0400
> Cc: rms@gnu.org, db48x@db48x.net, yuri.v.khan@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, 
>       monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, juri@linkov.net
> - In the first case, they use "@samp{---}" and it displays correctly.
> - In the second case, they use "---" and it displays correctly (as two

The second one is because the Texinfo manual intentionally doesn't use
UTF-8 as @documentencoding.  Whereas we do (also intentionally).

> What I mean is that I think it would be better if our manuals displayed
> em dash (written as "---") as they are displayed in the texinfo manual:
> "--" (HYPHEN-MINUS, HYPHEN-MINUS), instead of as "—" (EM DASH).  I find
> the former way to display this character easier to read in the monospace
> fonts that we typically use.

Others disagreed at the time, and so we decided quite some time ago to
use @documentencoding UTF-8 in all our manuals.  (It was not only
about the dashes; UTF-8 encoding causes quite a lot of other Unicode
characters to be output by makeinfo.)  I see no reason to reverse that
decision (and start all those arguments all over again).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]