https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156046
--- Comment #4 from Eyal Rozenberg <eyalr...@gmx.com> --- (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #3) > Hmm, but when is it a minus vs. a dash? That is a bit of a red herring. We are already replacing it with a dash; this bug is about the question of _which_ dash... > Folks writing text runs as in-line formulas won't appreciate an U+2014 EM > DASH when they really need a U+2212 MINUS They don't need that, because: 1. We are talking about runs of text. When we are in something which is in some way designated as math formula, then we can talk. If you suggest we use some heuristic to detect that - please open a bug and we'll discuss it :-) 2. There are no spaces before and after minuses in a proper formula. > so not converting the <space>-<space> is probably more helpful. No > unexpected conversion, and they have to adjust the U+002d. Absolutely disagree. That is a niche use case, and even for that niche, using a formula editor (or a TeX add-on etc.) is the more appropriate thing to do. > IMHO the <space>--<space> conversion to U+2013 EN DASH while keeping the > spaces is probably incorrect. Suggest we should instead be droping the > spaces and convert the run to a single EM DASH? No. Why? Because both the with-spaces and without-spaces styles are common. See this question on Writing.SX: https://writing.stackexchange.com/q/8555 > ... Chicago Style dictates that you must not have spaces before and > after the em dash, while AP Style dictates that you should have > spaces before and after... > Folks needing an EM DASH with surrounding white space can use the :---: > emoji syntax? We should be thinking about people who don't type syntax aiming for replacement, but about the typical author, who just writes using a single dash/hyphen and are not thinking about it. That is the typical use case we need to cater to. Nobody will know about this syntax nor use it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
