[PATCH manager] ui: sdn: use unicode characters for le and ge

[PATCH manager] ui: sdn: use unicode characters for le and ge

[Maximiliano Sandoval]

The characters in question are:

- LESS-THAN OR EQUAL TO (U+2264)
- GREATER-THAN OR EQUAL TO (U+2265)

Signed-off-by: Maximiliano Sandoval <m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
---
 www/manager6/sdn/PrefixListPanel.js | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/www/manager6/sdn/PrefixListPanel.js b/www/manager6/sdn/PrefixListPanel.js
index 174f30baf..95bc3e9f5 100644
--- a/www/manager6/sdn/PrefixListPanel.js
+++ b/www/manager6/sdn/PrefixListPanel.js
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.sdn.EditPrefixListEntryWindow', {
         },
         {
             xtype: 'proxmoxintegerfield',
-            fieldLabel: gettext('Prefix <='),
+            fieldLabel: gettext('Prefix ≤'),
             name: 'le',
             minValue: 0,
             maxValue: 128,
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.sdn.EditPrefixListEntryWindow', {
         },
         {
             xtype: 'proxmoxintegerfield',
-            fieldLabel: gettext('Prefix >='),
+            fieldLabel: gettext('Prefix ≥'),
             name: 'ge',
             minValue: 0,
             maxValue: 128,
@@ -236,12 +236,12 @@ Ext.define('PVE.sdn.PrefixListEntriesView', {
             flex: 1,
         },
         {
-            text: gettext('Prefix <='),
+            text: gettext('Prefix ≤'),
             dataIndex: 'le',
             flex: 1,
         },
         {
-            text: gettext('Prefix >='),
+            text: gettext('Prefix ≥'),
             dataIndex: 'ge',
             flex: 1,
         },
-- 
2.47.3

Re: [PATCH manager] ui: sdn: use unicode characters for le and ge

[Gabriel Goller]

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 <g.goller@proxmox.com>

Maybe @Shannon or @Dominik have a strong opinion on this?

Re: [PATCH manager] ui: sdn: use unicode characters for le and ge

[Shannon Sterz]

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 <g.goller@proxmox.com>
>
> 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

Re: [PATCH manager] ui: sdn: use unicode characters for le and ge

[Dominik Csapak]

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 <g.goller@proxmox.com>
>>
>> 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.