Re: U+2015 HORIZONTAL DASH, 2-em and 3-em dashes in the Chicago Manual of Style

From: André Szabolcs Szelp (
Date: Wed Jan 27 2010 - 11:30:03 CST

  • Next message: Ed Trager: "What is the Source of "kMandarin" in Unihan.txt?"

    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
    em-dashes wouldn't.
    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,
    >>> either
    >>> 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
    >>> fail.
    >> 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.
    > ~mark

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 27 2010 - 13:22:51 CST