On 6/22/2012 2:40 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Warren Young wrote:
>> On 6/22/2012 8:40 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>> wvHtml works,
>>> but I don't like the output - it insists on <div>, and on &rhquo instead
>>> of plain, simple ".
>>
>> You mean ”?
>>
> Yup.
>
>> What's wrong with that? You wanted HTML, and *any* browser will
>> understand that HTML entity, even Lynx.
>
> Hate it. I think it's completely unnecessary.
Five centuries of typographers would like to have a word with you.
” and " aren't the same thing. If the document includes curly
quotes, the only correct alternative available to the HTML converter is
to put out Unicode character U+201D.
Now, if your converter were converting straight quotation marks to
", you might have a point.
> I've done web pages,
> including professional and corporate ones, and never needed it.
IMO, web pages with straight quotation marks are unprofessional. :)
Let the ASCII go, Mark. Just let it go. Unicode became usable over a
decade ago, and became solid in most programs years ago.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
