Re: [PATCH 0/6] AsciiDoc vs Asciidoctor, once again

["Martin Ågren" <martin.agren@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 13 May 2021 at 22:35, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Some of these rephrase wording such as "other peoples' commits" to avoid
> > that apostrophe at the end of a word. I'm hoping those rephrasings don't
> > regress the quality of the text -- if they do, I'll be happy to try
> > something else.
>
> It is sad, but we really should try "something else", unfortunately.
>
> I do agree with the "motive" very much---even though condensing it
> down to plain text before running comparison already loses too much
> information, doc-diff is the only tool we currently have to
> effectively review regressions in rendered document, and the
> proposed transition cannot be done safely with confidence without
> being able to vet the differences.  I am happy to hear about 17%
> reduction already, but the requirement to rewrite things like "other
> peoples' commits" is a dealbreaker.

OK, calling it a dealbreaker is fair. Thanks.

> A typesettig rule like "instead of double-dashes --, use {litdd}" is
> an acceptable way out.  At least that wouldn't constrain what the
> final product that gets delivered to the end-users can say.

I've done some experimenting now with a new attribute "apos" which
expands to a lone SQ. It seems to work fine across the different tools.
The rule could be that all ' should be {apos}. That's a quite
aggressive rule in a sense. It could be narrowed down to something like
"... if the paragraph contains other quotation, such as backticks or
single quotes", but that's probably just overly complicating things.

I don't see an immediate need to go s/'/{apos}/ just because we can.
We've identified five problematic spots, four of which are with the tool
we're moving away from.

Martin