Re: [Groff] Getting properly rendered single quotes in groff

[walter harms]

just a notice,
several years ago (1987 ?) a problem with theses backtics where noticed and
$( .. ) was introduced to replace them. before you start to replace every
backtic it may more resonable to replace it with $( .. )

re,
 wh


Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Personally, I would prefer that quotes render sensibly in utf8, html
>>> and dvi, and that correctly written man pages do not need any
>>> modification.  Also, the use of `foo' is very convenient (even if it
>>> no longer appears balanced in the source).
>> Let me try to summarize:
>>
>>  . What people like to input in man pages is this:
>>
>>      `foo' should be equal to \[oq]foo\[cq]
>>
>>      \`foo\' should be equal to <ASCII 0x60>foo<ASCII 0x27>
>>
>>    I say `in man pages' because \` and \' act as accents too, but
>>    this is, AFAIK, not used (a quick search in the man pages on my
>>    SuSE GNU/Linux box showed not a single man file which uses \' or
>>    \` as an accent).
>>
>>  . Depending on the output device, ` and ' should be mapped to
>>    different characters.  However, \` and \' should always map to
>>    ASCII 0x60 and ASCII 0x27 for proper cut and paste support.
>>
>> Do you all agree with this?
> 
> This all sounds reasonable.  If needed I will adapt the 800 or so
> (Section 2, 3, 4, 5, 7) pages in man-pages to whatever input form is
> needed (provded it is not a heavy form -- e.g., not troff
> conditionals), so long as I can get what I consider to be decent
> *output*.  That is, balanced single quotes in ASCII (that probably
> means the equivalent of \(aq...\(aq ), and balanced quotes in UTF-8
> (as can currently be obtained by `...').
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Michael
>