Closed klembot closed 2 years ago
Original comment by Chris Klimas (Bitbucket: klembot, GitHub: klembot):
I was weighing Office Code Pro and even Courier Prime, but I think DejaVu is the right way to go.
Original comment by Thomas M. Edwards (Bitbucket: tmedwards, GitHub: tmedwards):
Option (a) entails checking not only the names of created passages, but also all link markup, especially for those cases where auto-creation of passages from links happens. Expecting Twine 2 to properly check all basic links (specifically, I mean, from basic markup and macros, but not JavaScript or when $variables are involved) for all story formats, with their varying markup, is an unlikely proposition (at least, until there are proper Twine 2<->story format hooks in place for that sort of thing; e.g. I mean, AFAIK, Twine 2 still does terrible things with SugarCube's square-bracketed link markup).
So, at the moment, my feeling is that (b) is the only real option, since (a) is, currently, unrealistic.
Original comment by greyelf (Bitbucket: greyelf, GitHub: greyelf):
So does that mean that: a) passage names should be automatically checked so they do not contain characters like en-dash and em-dashes, or that: b) Authors will just need to be more careful if they are coping passage names from software like MS Word. (which can silently convert standard characters like hyphens to em-dashes without the Author actually knowing/noticing)
Original comment by Chris Klimas (Bitbucket: klembot, GitHub: klembot):
I feels that's an unnecessary burden on story format authors, and opens a can of worms with regards to all the possible confusions Unicode can offer, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoglyph#Unicode_homoglyphs
Original comment by Thomas M. Edwards (Bitbucket: tmedwards, GitHub: tmedwards):
DejaVu Sans Mono ( @wikipedia.org, @dejavu-fonts.org ) might work. It certainly distinguishes between the hyphen-minus and en-/em-dashes clearly. It also has fairly good (though not perfect) coverage of Unicode planes 0 & 1 (basic & supplementary multilingual planes), though browsers are fairly good about filling in missing runes, so that's probably less interesting than it might otherwise be.
2.4 uses the system font now.
Originally reported by: Thomas M. Edwards (Bitbucket: tmedwards, GitHub: tmedwards)
The current editor font does not allow one to visually distinguish between the hyphen-minus and en-dash characters, which should be fairly easy. Worse still, the em-dash character is barely distinguishable from either of the previously mentioned characters.
Distinguishing the en-/em-dashes from each other is less of a concern, but distinguishing them from the hyphen-minus should be considered a necessity (especially with people copy-pasting from word processors).
(Full disclosure: I became aware of this issue because I had to debug it for someone recently.)