On 2017-08-09, Scott Kostyshak wrote:


> Right now, it seems there is more support for f, which I understand to
> mean "do nothing" with respect to the current behavior in master. If
> anyone else would like to vote, please do so as soon as possible. I hope
> to release beta1 next week.

For me, it is a different picture without a clear winner:


+1   a) "literal dash + allowbreak"
+1   b) "special char"
+1   f) "buffer setting"
 0   d) "ERT"
-1   c) "keep 2.2 (literal dash)"
-1   e) "preamble code"
-1   g) "revert to 2.1"

I agree that there is a margin of error and I may have misunderstood or
missed some of the feedback. So, please correct me in case I got it wrong.


a) convert ligature dashes to literal dash + allowbreak

   +1 Günter 13 Jun 2017      "simple and configurable"

b) convert ligature dashes to special character insets

   +0 Günter                 "100% backwards compatible but complicated"
   +1 Jean-Marc 16 Jul 2017  "I … prefer … a special inset over … ERT"

c) keep 2.2 behaviour (convert ligature dashes to literal dashes)

   -1 Enrico 2017-06-15

d) convert "ligature dashes" to ERT

   -1 Enrico    2017-06-01, "I am fiercely opposed to … ERT …"
   -1 Jean-Marc 16 Jul 2017 "nobody wants to really use it"
   +1 Richard   04/26/2017  "This seems the simplest."
   +1 Günter    2017-08-09  "simple, 100% backwards compatible"

e) re-define \textemdash

   -1 Jean-Marc 28 Jul 2017 "bound to cause us trouble one day"

f) keep the current 2.3alpha behaviour (buffer setting)

   +1 Pavel     28 Jul 2017 "I tend to agree with f)"
   +1 Enrico    28 Jul 2017 "IMO, f) is the best compromise"
   -1 Günter    04/25/17    "possible data loss and formatting changes"

g) revert to 2.1 behaviour

   -1 Günter



Reply via email to