From: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst contains a non-ascii
character. Change it to the ascii equivalent.
Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index 3e10719fee35..733478ade91b 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ e-mail discussions.
-11) Sign your work — the Developer's Certificate of Origin
+11) Sign your work - the Developer's Certificate of Origin
----------------------------------------------------------
To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can
--
Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:30:55 -0700
[email protected] wrote:
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst contains a non-ascii
> character. Change it to the ascii equivalent.
You should know better than to tell somebody like me that a hyphen and an
m-dash are equivalent! :)
I don't have any real objection to this change, but I am curious: is the
m-dash creating a problem somewhere? We have plenty of non-ASCII
characters in Documentation/ and beyond, why change this one? Or to put
it another way, do you think we should have an ASCII-only policy for
documentation files?
Thanks,
jon
On 07/21/17 10:27, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:30:55 -0700
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst contains a non-ascii
>> character. Change it to the ascii equivalent.
>
> You should know better than to tell somebody like me that a hyphen and an
> m-dash are equivalent! :)
OK, so they aren't totally equivalent, but close enough. :) Should I
have said analog instead of equivalent? And would you prefer '--' to '-'?
> I don't have any real objection to this change, but I am curious: is the
> m-dash creating a problem somewhere? We have plenty of non-ASCII
> characters in Documentation/ and beyond, why change this one? Or to put
> it another way, do you think we should have an ASCII-only policy for
> documentation files?
Ascii is a lowest common denominator. I can view and manipulate the file
with any common text editor and common text utilities (eg, cat, grep, etc)
on pretty much any Linux system that I walk up to. I don't need to go
to any effort to try to figure out what a non-ascii character is (which
is exactly what prompted my patch -- I wanted to know what the character
my patch modifies is).
Yes, I can change my terminal emulator character encoding to UTF-8, and
change my LANG to en_US.UTF-8. And now vi and cat show the correct
m-dash character. But then how do I grep for m-dash in files? Google
tells me I might be able to <ctrl> + <shift> + u hex_value_of_mdash
to enter an mdash, but I sure don't know what the hex value of mdash
is. Plus I need to be observant enough to notice that the string I
am grepping for contains an m-dash instead of a dash. And why should
I assume "en_US" as the prefix to my UTF-8 LANG?
To answer your second question, I would _prefer_ ASCII-only except for
cases where being limited to ASCII is restricting the ability to
convey information (properly).
I would reverse your question, and ask what is the added value of
non-ascii characters __in cases similar to this one__, that justifies
the negative impact? (Please don't answer what the added value is
in cases that are not similar to this one. I know the answer to that
question is different.)
> Thanks,
>
> jon
>