From: Ralf Wildenhues Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:52:55 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] manual: Fix or remove em dashes. Message-ID: <20071009215255.GB3146@ins.uni-bonn.de> In-Reply-To: <18071eea0710091441n717c0a99p58a9b585d15cc778@mail.gmail.com> Hello, and sorry, this patch should be number 6/6 of course. * Thomas Adam wrote on Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 11:41:41PM CEST: > On 09/10/2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > em dashes were used inconsistently in the manual. > > This changes them to the way they are used in US English. > > I find this particular patch to be rather odd; there is nothing > invalid in the way the em-dashes are used. No, not invalid, just inconsistent usage in the manual. > Why is it US English is somehow de facto over, say, proper English? > :) Oh, that was written quoting from memory and experience. But here's a quote to back it up, from as of now: | According to most American sources (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style) | and to some British sources (e.g., The Oxford Guide to Style), an em | dash should always be set closed (not surrounded by spaces). But the | practice in many parts of the English-speaking world[...] sets it | open [...] No, I did not write that! ;-) Cheers, Ralf