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 DDF1F1FF13C for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2026 17:20:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 18B38109E5; Thu, 11 Jun 2026 17:20:10 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 17:19:34 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Gabriel Goller" , "Maximiliano Sandoval" Subject: Re: [PATCH manager] ui: sdn: use unicode characters for le and ge X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260605134056.409582-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: From: "Shannon Sterz" X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1781191126308 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.108 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: AR6YJGHJVOJLVGCCNZBISUER3WSK4N26 X-Message-ID-Hash: AR6YJGHJVOJLVGCCNZBISUER3WSK4N26 X-MailFrom: s.sterz@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 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 =E2= =89=A4 or =E2=89=A5 > 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_cha= racter