!standard 3.10 05-03-15 AI95-00429/01 !class presentation 05-03-15 !status work item 05-03-15 !status received 05-03-15 !priority Medium !difficulty Easy !subject Representation of minus signs !summary Minus signs should be represented by en-dash rather than hyphen except in the Courier font (which is nonproportional and in which minus and en-dash look the same). !problem In plain text a minus sign is typically represented as a hyphen. When this is formatted in other fonts a hyphen is too short by comparison with a plus sign. This looks ugly in mathematical expressions, especially when plus signs appear nearby. The standard typographical solution to this problem is to use the symbol en-dash (a dash the width of a letter n) to represent a minus sign. In most of the RM and in particular in all of the core this has been done very consistently. However, some Annexes both in original and new amendment material have several hyphens and look crappy. !proposal This AI lists all (perhaps) the hyphens that should be changed to en-dash. In addition a small number of hyphens have been changed to en-dash in the Courier font. Thus makes the raw text less easy to read but has no impact on the appearance of the final Word text. It is recommended that they be converted back to hyphens. !wording A The following paragraphs have an en-dash in Courier which should be replaced by a hyphen. 9.6.1 (15/2), (16/2), (47/2), (49/2) A.4.2 (12) A.4.7 (12) B The following paragraphs have a hyphen in Times which should be changed to an en-dash (unless perhaps as noted otherwise) (exp = character in exponent) 2.2(9) but maybe not this one since it depicts the raw delimiters, but note that the hyphen-minus in 2.1(15) is an en-dash. Perhaps they should both be the same 3.5.4 (27.a.1/1) A.1(49) and maybe not this one since it is talking about the representation of a hyphen as a literal A.4.3 (74.1/1) A.5.1 (13 - twice), (15 - twice), (16) A.5.2 (52) A.5.3 (16 exp), (23 exp), (26 exp), (47 - twice), (56 exp), (66 exp), (67 exp) A.18.1 (8/2), (8.a/2) A.18.2 (80.a/2) (207/2) B.3.2 (35.a) D.8 (42, one minus in this is OK and one isn't) F.2 (8), (9) F.3 (10), (14) note: F.3(18) has an unfortunate break where a minus is separated from its digits by an end of line. F.3.1 (30), (43/1) F.3.2 (11), (19 table - 3 times) F.3.3 (30) G.1.1 (27.c), (35 - twice), (36) G.1.2 (15/2), (17/2), (19), (23), (25), (38, (39) G.2.2 (5) G.2.4 (14 table - 9 times) G.2.5 (3), (4.c - 4 times), (4.e), (4.i), (4.l), (4.m) G.2.6 (12 - twice) G.3.1 (45/2 - twice), (77/2 - twice), (81/2) G.3.2 (87/2 - twice), (145/2 - twice), (149/2), (150/2) K (41 exp), (111 exp), (158 exp), (162 exp), (202 - twice) M.3 (57/2) C The following paragraphs are program text that has comments. The comments are in times and in italic. These also have hyphens that should be en-dash. 3.5.9 (27), (28 twice) 3.9.1 (17) B.3 (6) D There are also some references to minus as an operator in the cross reference paras in the AARM eg in 4.5.2(1). These probably don't matter. !discussion The search for items A, en-dashes which should be converted back to hyphens, was dome by computer on the current draft (10) of the AARM. The search for items B, hyphens in formulae which should be en-dashes was performed by a visual search of the existing printed 2001 RM and the current draft of the AARM on eh screen. I find it much easier to spot errors in the printed version. The seach for items C, hyphens in comments, was done by computer but since there are severall zillion italic hyphens in the text it was a tedious experience and my finger went like jelly pushing the fff key. !example (See discussion.) !corrigendum !ACATS test !appendix *************************************************************