Right. Ciarán, never go only by the Unicode names; they can be quite misleading. There is a long discussion of the use of apostrophes in the standard.<br><br>Mark<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/28/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">
Jon Hanna</b> <<a href="mailto:jon@hackcraft.net">jon@hackcraft.net</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Ciarán Ó Duibhín wrote:<br>> Agreed, names are only informative. But the basic fact is that there is a<br>> processing need for two characters for this mark, one when it stands for<br>> elision (or possession), and another when it terminates a quote. These
<br>> functions are normally called "apostrophe" and "right single quote" and it<br>> is fortunate (and unlikely to be coincidental) that Unicode contains<br>> distinct non-decomposable characters with those names.
<br><br>It's unfortunate and largely co-incidental.<br>_______________________________________________<br>Ietf-languages mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no">Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no</a><br><a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages">
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br></blockquote></div><br>