blocks|key|1096083|text|可能是使用数字代码更通用，因为它直接引用html实体表中的字符，但我猜它们都适用于任何地方。对于许多字符来说，第一个符号更容易记住。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1096084|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

Could be that using the numeral code is more universal, as it's a direct reference to a character in the html entity table, but I guess they both work everywhere. The first notation is just massively easier to remember for a lot of characters.

blocks|key|881372|text|他们是完全相同的角色。请参阅：http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|881373|除了浏览器bug，它们在所有情况下都会显示相同的内容，因此唯一的区别是代码的可读性，这将指向&mdash;。|style|CODE|881374|或者，如果在HTML文档中使用UTF-8作为字符集，则可以直接输入字符。这也将显示完全相同的内容。|881375|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash^0|F|X|0|0|1A|7|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|R|8|@]|9|@$A|S|B|T|1|U]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|V|8|@$A|W|B|X|F|G]]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|Y|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|J|3|-4|5|6|7|Z|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|K|$L|$5|M|N|O|C|$P|Q]]]]

They are exactly the same character. See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash</a>

Barring browser bugs they will display the same in all cases, so the only difference would be concerning code readability, which would point to <code>&amp;mdash;</code>.

Or, if you are using UTF-8 as a charset in your HTML document, you could enter the character directly. That would also display exactly the same.

blocks|key|881521|text|SGML解析器(或者XHTML中的XML解析器)可以在不处理DTD的情况下处理&#8212;+(这对浏览器来说无关紧要，因为它们只是在喝标签汤)，而&mdash;更易于人类在源代码中读取和写入。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|881522|就我个人而言，我会坚持使用文字破折号，并确保我的字符编码设置是一致的。|881523|entityMap^0|13|7|22|7|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|J|8|@$9|K|A|L|B|C]|$9|M|A|N|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|O|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|H|3|-4|5|6|7|P|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|I|$]]

SGML parsers (or XML parsers in the case of XHTML) can handle <code>&amp;#8212;</code> without having to process the DTD (which doesn't matter to browsers as they just slurp tag soup), while <code>&amp;mdash;</code> is easier for humans to read and write in the source code.

Personally, I would stick to a literal em-dash and ensure that my character encoding settings were consistent.

blocks|key|881664|text|&mdash;+:：&#8212;+:：\u2014|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|881665|在输出到HTML的JavaScript文本字符串中表示m-破折号时，请注意，它将由其Unicode值表示。在某些情况下，与号字符('&')不能被解析--特别是JSX中的某些上下文。在这种情况下，&mdash;和&#8212;都不起作用。相反，您需要使用Unicode转义序列：\u2014。|881666|例如，在实现从JavaScript变量输出文本的render()方法时：|881667|render()+{
+++let+text='JSX+transcoders+will+preserve+the+&+character&mdash;to+'+
++++++++++++%2B+'protect+from+possible+script+hacking+and+cross-site+hacks.'
+++return+(
+++++<div>{text}</div>
+++)
}|code-block|syntax|javascript|881668|这将输出：|881669|<div>JSX+transcoders+will+preserve+the+&+character&mdash;to+protect+from+possible+script+hacking+and+cross-site+hacks.</div>|881670|您应该使用\u2014，而不是&前缀的表示：|881671|let+text='JSX+transcoders+will+preserve+the+&+character\u2014to+…'|881672|entityMap^0|0|7|A|7|K|6|0|2P|7|2X|7|3U|6|0|O|8|0|0|0|0|F|1|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|Y|8|@$9|Z|A|10|B|C]|$9|11|A|12|B|C]|$9|13|A|14|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|15|8|@$9|16|A|17|B|C]|$9|18|A|19|B|C]|$9|1A|A|1B|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|1C|8|@$9|1D|A|1E|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|J|3|K|5|L|7|1F|8|@]|D|@]|E|$M|N]]|$1|O|3|P|5|6|7|1G|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|Q|3|R|5|L|7|1H|8|@]|D|@]|E|$M|N]]|$1|S|3|T|5|6|7|1I|8|@$9|1J|A|1K|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|U|3|V|5|L|7|1L|8|@]|D|@]|E|$M|N]]|$1|W|3|-4|5|6|7|1M|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|X|$]]

<code>&amp;mdash;</code> :: <code>&amp;#8212;</code> :: <code>\u2014</code>

When representing the m-dash in a JavaScript text string for output to HTML, note that it will be represented by its unicode value. There are cases when ampersand characters ('&amp;') will not be resolved—notably certain contexts within JSX. In this case, neither <code>&amp;mdash;</code> nor <code>&amp;#8212;</code> will work. Instead you need to use the Unicode escape sequence: <code>\u2014</code>. 

For example, when implementing a <code>render()</code> method to output text from a JavaScript variable:

<pre><code>render() {
 let text='JSX transcoders will preserve the &amp; character&amp;mdash;to ' 
 + 'protect from possible script hacking and cross-site hacks.'
 return (
 &lt;div&gt;{text}&lt;/div&gt;
 )
}
</code></pre>

This will output:

<pre><code>&lt;div&gt;JSX transcoders will preserve the &amp; character&amp;mdash;to protect from possible script hacking and cross-site hacks.&lt;/div&gt;
</code></pre>

Instead of the <code>&amp;</code>– prefixed representation, you should use \u2014:

<pre><code>let text='JSX transcoders will preserve the &amp; character\u2014to …'
</code></pre>

<code>&amp;mdash;</code> or <code>&amp;#8212;</code>

Is there a difference between these? Is one better-supported than the other?

`&mdash;` or `&#8212;` is there any difference in HTML output?

&mdash;或&#8212;这两者之间有区别吗？其中一个比另一个更受支持吗？

问`—`还是`—`输出有区别吗？
EN

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问`&mdash;`还是`&#8212;`输出有区别吗？EN

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问`—`还是`—`输出有区别吗？
EN