Jonathan Kew wrote: > On 12 Sep 2011, at 08:59, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > >> Arthur had some plans to cover normalization in hyph-utf8, but I >> already hate the idea of duplicated apostrophe, > > That's a bit different, and hard to see how we could avoid it except via > special-case code somewhere that "knows" to treat U+0027 and U+2019 as > equivalent for certain purposes, even though they are NOT canonically > equivalent characters and would not be touched by normalization. > > IMO, the "duplicated apostrophe" case is something we have to live with > because there are, in effect, two different orthographic conventions in use, > and we want both to be supported. They're alternate spellings of the word, > and so require separate patterns - just like we'd require for "colour" and > "color", if we were trying to support both British and American conventions > in a single set of patterns.
It may be that you are intentionally putting up a straw-man argument here, but if you are not, may I comment that "trying to support both British and American conventions in a single set of patterns" would (IMHO) be impossible, since British English hyphenation is based primarily on etymology whilst American is based on syllable boundaries. I wish I understood more about the "duplicate apostophe" problem, in order to be able to offer a more directly relevant (and constructive) comment : Google throws up nothing relevant. Philip Taylor -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
