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

Re: RFC: Description text in packages



Le mardi 16 décembre 2008 à 23:39 +0200, Nikolay Vladimirov a écrit :
> Ok, it seems that i made a mess of my ideas in the process of writing
> 
> My general ranting isn't against Unicode it's against using special
> Unicode characters(bullets, and the "<<" thing).
> A clean summary can be written with clear guidelines and common characters.

A clean summary will be written with clear guidelines and correctly
encoded text.

> Is there any real benefit in using unicode bullet symbol,

There is a real benefit if you want bullets displayed on the user
systems.

> the double arrow thing or quotes different from " ?

The double arrow thing is a quoting form. It is the correct quoting form
for my country. As others noted each locale is going to have a correct
quoting form which is not necessarily ".

Since I'm no native American English speaker, I won't comment on what
the correct American English form is. As long as it's not a clear
encoding violation like the “use accents as quotes” thing.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée


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