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

Re: More info about #228486 / #235759

* Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> [2004-07-28 13:36]:
> b) Use guillemots
>    - guillemots are very unusual in Germany (In printing I remember
>      only a few occurences in ~1900 vintage books, and none in
>      contemporary literature)

 No, they are not. They are more and more common. To add some things to
the publications other have mentioned already I can name the
Linux-Magazin, and various literature (Holbein, e.g.).

>    - The usual de-latin1-nodeadkeys keyboard layout hasn't even a
>      definition for quillemots, it can only be typed in via
>      AltGr+<Codepoint>. The X11 keyboard has a common definition for
>      all latin charsets (M-y, M-x), but this isn't marked on the
>      keyboard, so most people don't know how to type guillemots (and
>      they don't have to).

 Yes, they don't have to. And about the former: A bugreport has been
filed, #228968 -- it seems to have not made it into the file in contrary
to the close message. Will have to investigate that again.

>    - guillemots are already in use in swiss german, but with _swapped_
>      semantics. This will make a confusing reading for swiss people.

 That is a completely different topic. They are using it coming from
french quotings, because part of the swiss is french. It is though much
more confising using the ,," style quotes for all the people involved.

> Starting from this, b) is probably the worst solution. I'm pretty sure
> many people won't even recognize a guillemot as a quoting sign without
> having more context.

 I definitely like to disagree, and you seem to be the first person who
thinks like this. All the discussions before haven't raised any concerns
in that respect.

 So long,
14:04 <groby> ?? was geht?
14:07 -!- groby [~nima@] has left #debian.de [groby]
14:07 <Scorpi> groby: groby
                                  -- #debian.de

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: