4 ms·

We can follow and make all sorts of rules. What you cannot do: - Unicode has only one apostrophe (the ASCII one literally named that) When Unicode says - 20

We can follow and make all sorts of rules. What you cannot do: - Unicode has only one apostrophe (the ASCII one literally named that) When Unicode says - 2019 is preferred for apostrophe You can’t appeal to Unicode and then ignore them in the next breath.

eviks 2y ago
You should take this argument back to the OP or zahlman re. whether referencing Unicode implies agreement with any nonsense in the standard's comments (such as rejecting the literal "apostrophe" to be used as an apostrophe). I was responding to the list of symbols named "apostrophe", where zahlman also seems to follow the consistent logic of only listing apostrophes, not quotes
- keybored 2y ago
  > You should take this argument back to the OP or zahlman re. whether referencing Unicode implies agreement with any nonsense in the standard's comments (such as rejecting the literal "apostrophe" to be used as an apostrophe). You: No, that’s completely true what they said there You: Wait, you should take that up with them… Just don’t speak out of your mouth with “Unicode” when you aren’t prepared to get it thrown back in your face? Doesn’t seem difficult. > I was responding to the list of symbols named "apostrophe", where zahlman also seems to follow the consistent logic of only listing apostrophes, not quotes Oh wow they’re named apostrophe? How great. I’ll start using this “start of header” character in my emails, that is probably so fit for purpose.
  - eviks 2y ago
    But what does seem difficult is for you to use words for understanding instead of throwing throwing them in people's faces. It is true what they said within the context of the conversation where the standard notes are either explicitly or implicitly rejected. > that is probably so fit for purpose. Or probably not. Unlike in this case where apostrophe is definitely fit for purpose
    - keybored 2y ago
      I don’t know why I phrased that so aggressively. Sorry.

eviks 2y ago

You should take this argument back to the OP or zahlman re. whether referencing Unicode implies agreement with any nonsense in the standard's comments (such as rejecting the literal "apostrophe" to be used as an apostrophe). I was responding to the list of symbols named "apostrophe", where zahlman also seems to follow the consistent logic of only listing apostrophes, not quotes

keybored 2y ago
> You should take this argument back to the OP or zahlman re. whether referencing Unicode implies agreement with any nonsense in the standard's comments (such as rejecting the literal "apostrophe" to be used as an apostrophe). You: No, that’s completely true what they said there You: Wait, you should take that up with them… Just don’t speak out of your mouth with “Unicode” when you aren’t prepared to get it thrown back in your face? Doesn’t seem difficult. > I was responding to the list of symbols named "apostrophe", where zahlman also seems to follow the consistent logic of only listing apostrophes, not quotes Oh wow they’re named apostrophe? How great. I’ll start using this “start of header” character in my emails, that is probably so fit for purpose.
- eviks 2y ago
  But what does seem difficult is for you to use words for understanding instead of throwing throwing them in people's faces. It is true what they said within the context of the conversation where the standard notes are either explicitly or implicitly rejected. > that is probably so fit for purpose. Or probably not. Unlike in this case where apostrophe is definitely fit for purpose
  - keybored 2y ago
    I don’t know why I phrased that so aggressively. Sorry.