Re: Unicode cuteness

[Mark Polesky]

Carl Sorensen wrote:
> I'm OK with that, but I still have the concern of
> documenting it.  What do we need to do to make sure that
> the documentation works properly?

I don't think it's worth it.  There are too many
documentation issues.  I made a tiny change to
tutorial.itely as a test; I just put a couple of these
characters in @samp block.  The characters display nicely in
html, but here are some problems I've found:

1) the characters don't display at all in pdf.
2) only half of the characters display in info.
3) gitk renders the commit with some weird escape sequences.

Not sure if the gitk issue translates to any real problem,
but the first two are obvious non-starters.  I've attached
some images to demonstrate.

- Mark

unicode_html.png
Description: PNG image

unicode_pdf.png
Description: PNG image

unicode_info.png
Description: PNG image

unicode_gitk.png
Description: PNG image