> 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 a

> 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.