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

> 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.