From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A6741FF14C for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:58:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 51285CDDE; Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:58:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3c5f2541-e0d2-4a3c-ae4d-2bb305ade73c@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:57:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH manager] ui: sdn: use unicode characters for le and ge To: Shannon Sterz , Gabriel Goller , Maximiliano Sandoval References: <20260605134056.409582-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1781254632923 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.049 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: TCFUYC2OLXNHOCIBJRZJUTQC3AUQKELX X-Message-ID-Hash: TCFUYC2OLXNHOCIBJRZJUTQC3AUQKELX X-MailFrom: d.csapak@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 6/11/26 5:18 PM, Shannon Sterz wrote: > On Thu Jun 11, 2026 at 4:28 PM CEST, Gabriel Goller wrote: >> Not sure what our stance on this is, I couldn't find any occurence of ≤ or ≥ >> with a quick grep in our repos, so this is probably a first. >> >> From my side: >> Acked-by: Gabriel Goller >> >> Maybe @Shannon or @Dominik have a strong opinion on this? > > Hm not really, the only concern id have is maybe a users does not have > those glyphs in a local sans-serif font and then this could get rendered > as "tofu" [1]. Having said that, these glyphs are probably pretty common > at this point, so it should be fine. > > Note that this could also be mitigated by us shipping a font that > supports those glyphs. We currently aren't doing that to my knowledge. > > [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specials_(Unicode_block)#Replacement_character also don't have a super strong opinion on that, but IMO the bigger question here is: why should we change the status quo? What is the actual improvement here? @Maximiliano: the commit message could include a 'why'. I don't think it'll make much difference for the end-users (at least I can't remember any bug reports for it) but it will "break" all translations temporarily until each language is updated again. So while it might look a bit nicer, i don't think we gain much here.