Re: [Groff] Bullets in manual pages and -K groff option

2006-01-26 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> > 1. An acute accent is not a quoting character. Anyone using an > > acute accent for quoting is abusing this character. > > Agreed, Groff should be fixed. Also it probably should use Unicode > bullets (not middle dots) for bullets. I won't change the defaults. From the PROBLEMS file: *

Re: [Groff] Bullets in manual pages and -K groff option

2006-01-26 Thread Bruno Haible
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > >The ACUTE ACCENT part looks wrong. > > But libiconv also transliterates it to "'" :) The correctness criteria for glibc are stronger than for libiconv, since it's used by many more people. It can also be a bug in libiconv, due to the fact that at the time when I in

Re: [Groff] Bullets in manual pages and -K groff option

2006-01-26 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
Bruno Haible wrote: As for the "iconv" program from glibc, the situation is worse. I have prepared a patch against Glibc-2.3.6 (attached) that transliterates the offending characters produced by Groff into their ASCII equivalents if there is no any other suitable fallback. You can try it without

Re: [Groff] Bullets in manual pages and -K groff option

2006-01-26 Thread Bruno Haible
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > >Why should they complain? They can use GNU libiconv. It transliterates the > >bullet to 'o', like you wish. > > The "iconv" program from libiconv transliterates the bullet to ".", > which is also acceptable. libiconv converts the MIDDLE DOT to '.' and the BULLET and

Re: [Groff] Bullets in manual pages and -K groff option

2006-01-26 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
I wrote: Is this patch a right solution? Forgot to say: even if it is, it would be insane to require patched or not-yet-released version of glibc just for viewing manual pages "the right way" in locales such as pl_PL. A short-term distro-friendly solution is also needed. Any ideas? -- Ale

Re: [Groff] Bullets in manual pages and -K groff option

2006-01-26 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
Bruno Haible wrote: Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: The answer "patch glibc so that iconv transliterates the bullet to 'o'" is better (and in fact this is doable), but I think that users of non-Glibc systems (or old Glibc) will complain if this becomes the official answer. Why should the

Re: [Groff] Bullets in manual pages and -K groff option

2006-01-25 Thread Bruno Haible
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > The answer "patch > glibc so that iconv transliterates the bullet to 'o'" is better (and in > fact this is doable), but I think that users of non-Glibc systems (or > old Glibc) will complain if this becomes the official answer. Why should they complain? They can use