On Thu Dec 19, 2024 at 7:15 PM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > At 2024-12-19T17:20:09+0000, Deri wrote: > > I don't mind, I just thought you considered readability of the grout > > file important [1], > > I do. ISO 646/ASCII is readable practically everywhere. There remain > places where UTF-8, at least when exercising code points greater than > U+007F, is not, and even if the processing stream supports UTF-8 > perfectly, lack of font coverage can make UTF-8 unreadable again.
Although looking up Unicode codepoint numbers is arguably better than seeing gibberish, neither is a particularly good form to work with. Your reasoning sounds like "making it perfect for most people would make it horrible for a small minority, so let's rather keep it bad for everyone". > Supporting emission of "plain ASCII, damn it" is a high priority for me. I prefer the approach of most other Unix tools which treat UTF-8 transparently as "data". I understand that groff cannot treat it this way on input due to composing/decomposing characters etc., but I feel like it would've been possible on output if groff hadn't abandoned the c & h commands, no? ~ onf
