From: André Szabolcs Szelp (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jan 27 2010 - 11:30:03 CST
And I always thought, that EM DASH differd from HORIZONTAL BAR by EM
DASH having slight space around it while HORIZONTAL BAR not, so that
several HORIZONTAL BARs would join up to a line without kerning, while
At least some fonts do draw them this way.
-- well, not all.
On 2010.01.27., at 1:10, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> On 01/26/2010 04:13 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2010, at 20:31, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>> Maybe the lack of 2-em and 3-em dashes as characters in Unicode is
>>> based on the assumption that successive em dashes are joining,
>>> because they have been so designed by the font designer (i.e. the
>>> advance width is exactly the same as the dash width), or because
>>> automatic kerning is specified and used. But these assumptions often
>> I have no objection to adding a two-em dash and a three-em dash to
>> the UCS.
> I always assumed that U+2015 HORIZONTAL BAR was supposed to be
> exactly this, the 3em dash (I didn't actually consider the
> possibility of a 2em dash). I think I made it 3 ems long in my
> Marin font. If it isn't (and almost no fonts make it this long),
> then given the typographic tradition I agree that UCS certainly
> should have 2em and 3em dashes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 27 2010 - 13:22:51 CST