bug#35885: 25.2; Few mistakes in Emacs Manual (+ proposals)

[Sebastian Urban]

> @t{} is the best trick we have for these characters, so if it doesn't
> work, someone will have to suggest a better way and verify it works in
> PDF.  At the time we tried other methods, but AFAIR they were worse.

Hmmm... if I use @t{“} (but without \rawbackslash \plainfrenchspacing)
or {\ttfamily “} or \texttt{“} in my 'test.tex' -> 'test.pdf' it
prints left double quotation mark correctly (i.e. in typewriter
shape), so... maybe there is something wrong with \rawbackslash or
\plainfrenchspacing or you used some older tex distribution with bug?

Also '\tt' inside @t{} as stated in "LATEX2e: An unofficial reference
manual" (November 2018) is "older version of font switching", so maybe
try newer - '\ttfamily', unless this was intentional.

As I mentioned before @t{``} and t@{''} would do the job, but I think
putting specific characters, i.e. “ and ” is intended.

> Does @kbd{`like this'} work?  I don't want to use @t here, as this is
> keyboard input.
> ...
> Does @kbd{``like this''} work?

Hmmm... I still don't know how to turn texi to pdf, so please don't
expect 100% answers, but I'm guessing it could work.  Also you forgot
about 4th occurrence there, but this is l/r double quotation mark
problem so...

> > In DISPLAY.TEXI - L1560:
> > #  If the curved quotes @samp{‘}, @samp{’}, @samp{“}, and @samp{”} are
> > Well here we have @samp{...} instead of @t{...}, which also fails to
> > show “ and ”, displaying instead \ and " (just like @t{...}).  But
> > it looks good in HTML.
>
> I changed them all to use @t{}.

Please revert this change.  I'm not sure what is the role of @samp{},
but they are everywhere in the manual.  I think they exist to
distinguish inserted (by something/someone in Emacs) characters that
are not part of the main text - they differ form @t{}, because they
add l/r single quotation marks in main (normal) text shape around
character.  With them we have problem only with l/r double quotation
mark, with @t{} problem won't be fixed and it'll cause additional
problems with some of the rest of quotes in this part of text.

Also I'm beginning to think, that our quotes should use @samp rather
than @t.  For example in "Inserting text" chapter if something inserts
thing, this thing is using @samp: user inserts ordinary graphic
character ‘a’, ‘B’, ‘3’, ‘=’, "C-q DEL" inserts ‘DEL’, "C-q 1 0 1 B"
inserts ‘AB’.  Maybe @t{} with "quotes" is mistake.

> In PDF 22.5 Quotation Marks:
> ...
> I don't understand why do we need to move away from @t{}.  the comment
> clearly says that @t{} was found to do the job here.  What am I
> missing?

Text says "using straight apostrophes" and with @t{'like this'} we'll
get curved ones (attached "pic2").  So @kbd{'like this'} should be ok.

> Why?  `..' is converted by TeX to curve single quotes, and ``..'' to
> curve double quotes.  What do you see in the PDF?

Yes, but they are in main text shape, not typewriter (again "pic2").

> > In TEXT.TEXI - L442-443:
> ...
> I did what I could here.

There will be problem of l/r double quotation mark, but it will look
better than before patch, so for now it's good.

> In TEXT.TEXI - L448:
> ...
> In TEXT.TEXI - L469:

You forgot about these, I cannot think of a solution for them.  First
one uses @code{} and I have no idea how it works, first apostrophe is
ok, so maybe just type @code{'(?‘ ?’ ?“ ?”)}?  Second one is typical
l/r double quotation mark, you could change it to @t{“} and @t{”} - it
won't fix it, but there will be some unification of bugs. :)

====================

As for Unicode, after reading your explanation and checking "The
Unicode Standard Version 12.0 – Core Specification" they seem to use
small caps for the name that is written in lowercase and main text
font for code with uppercase 'U' and letters if any in the code.

I can agree for small caps for name (lowercase!), but for code we
should go with @code{} - reason for this is that there are other
Unicode codes in the manual and they have @code{} "face", also
with main text or small caps Unicode code looks uglier (depends on
font) - letters are wider than numbers (sometimes higher), while with
typewriter (@code{}) they are equal.

So, my choice is:
@code{U+201D} @sc{right double quotation mark}

But if you really want to go with how Unicode docs do it, then:
U+201D @sc{right double quotation mark}

I made quick comparison:
\texttt{U+201D} \textsc{right double quotation mark}\\
\texttt{U+201D} \textsc{RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK}\\
U+201D \textsc{right double quotation mark}\\
U+201D \textsc{RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK}\\
\textsc{u+201d right double quotation mark}\\
\textsc{U+201D RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK}
Each line corresponds to the line in "pic3".

====================

As for last part...

> This is a user manual, not a mathematical paper, it doesn't have to be
> rigorously correct.  It must be useful, though, and I think the
> current text is more useful because it avoids possible confusion, even
> though the users may pay one more keystroke.  Okay?

Well, maybe someone else will bring this up again in the future, until
then - OK.


In the meantime, I shouldn't do it but it's something similar so...

In INFO 15.10.4 (description of 'comma'):
... You can also type ‘C-x u’ to undo the replacement; this exits the
‘query-replace’,...
I just want to point out that other undo commands also work,
so maybe:
... You can also type any undo command to undo the replacement;...
or maybe combine both:
... You can also type any undo command (e.g. 'C-x u') to undo the...
Or is it nitpicking again? :)

pic3.png
Description: PNG image

pic2.png
Description: PNG image