norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2011/11/18/emacsQuoteshttp://norman.walsh.name/2011/11/18/emacsQuotes/comments.atom2012-05-24T00:05:06.852121ZComment 1 on /2011/11/18/emacsQuoteshttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00012011-11-19T01:01:23Z2011-11-19T01:01:23Zsharonda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Indeed, lsquo is not the correct glyph in that context. U+0027 is technically correct, and it's not a quotation mark at all, formally speaking.

It's interesting nonetheless to see how different apps handle the context. Thanks for the sample images!

Comment 2 on /2011/11/18/emacsQuoteshttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00022011-11-19T01:05:12Z2011-11-19T01:05:12Zsharonda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Also--sorry not to have noticed this in time for the first comment and thus to leave a second one, but it's not U+0218 and 0219, rather 2018 and 2019. :P

Comment 3 on /2011/11/18/emacsQuoteshttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00032011-11-19T14:55:48Z2011-11-19T14:55:48ZNorman Walshda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Good catch, 2018/2019 now fixed. Thanks!

Comment 4 on /2011/11/18/emacsQuoteshttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00042011-12-05T12:40:46Z2011-12-05T12:40:46ZMatěj Ceplda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

It must be something about Emacs. In gedit (on RHEL 6.2) it looks kind of OK (at least to me) in 11pt and blown up to 36pt or so.