On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 11:44:22PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 09:24:51PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 10:33:27PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 12:21:28PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
Would requiring spaces on either side of the double dash before converting it into an emdash improve the parsing behavior any?
Please don't.
<snob type=typography> Em dashes are properly set in English text without spacing on either side, though the ASCIIography of this usage is much less picky.
If someone decides that it needs to be " -- " that's mapped, at least take the spaces out when setting the glyph?
</snob>
. . . except that the notion that it's strictly "foo--bar" instead of "foo -- bar" is a relatively recent phenomenon, and in times past whether or not there was a space was largely a matter of taste, regional custom, and (even farther back) what leads the typesetter had on-hand when he was laying out the page for pressing.
Ok, then you're more of a typography snob than me. :-)
Err, thanks, I guess. I tend to be willing to overlook either, though no spacing bothers my eyes -- kinda like looking at Python source code.
I will admit, having seen it both ways, that in typsetting, it tends to look better to me with little spacing (a shim worth), but in ASCII text, I tend to put in the spaces, as well.
I don't recall for sure how it all started out. It may be that before leading availability was an issue the emdash was one of those things that was supposed to have a half-space rather than a full space or no space, but leading availability screwed with the "standard" until everything kinda went to hell, then a new "standard" arose -- though in this case it was two standards. Similarly, in handwriting, there was supposed to be a space after a period, but no specific two-space standard was in place. Then, with the advent of print text, they went to two spaces because it was easier to read. Eventually, because of leading availability, typesetters went to 1.5 spaces (didn't want to use up all their full-size space leads on spacing between sentences), which made folks like the Microsoft Word developers decide that one space or two was six of one and half a dozen of the other, and they made one space the standard operating format for their software. Despite that, it's still more natural looking and easier to read with two spaces after a period than with one.
Meh. Yeah, I'm kind of particular about all this stuff, I guess. Frankly, I'd like 1.5 spaces after periods, but in absence of that capability on my Thinkpad, I'll just use two spaces and be happy it doesn't have to be one. Same with two hyphens, with a space on either side, instead of an emdash with a half-space on either side (which is what I think was the more "proper" use originally in print).
Clearly, if this is done, it needs to be considered whether surrounding spaces should be eaten by the parser.
Agreed. I vote "no".
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
At least we agree on posting order.