Chicago/MLA ellipsis versus the Unicode defined AP ellipsis

[t0dd]

Hello all,

Narrative writers working in the English language, and in particular the 
US (I can't speak for the rest of the English-language world), are 
generally required to adhere to the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS) when 
submitting manuscripts and screenplays for publication. News people 
generally follow the AP (Associated Press) style. The rub: they each use 
a different ellipsis. The CMoS requires three dots spaced apart. The AP, 
because news copy is space-conscious, requires dots tightly packed.

Other style guides follow one or the other, but most follow the the 
Chicago style or they are indifferent. For example, in school many of 
you were required to follow the MLA style guide. That also requires a 
spaced-out "Chicago" ellipsis (I am just going to call it that from here 
on out). Conversely, if you wrote for the Psychology Review, you follow 
the APA style which adheres to the "AP" ellipsis.

Unicode only supplies one horizontal ellipsis: U+2026. The AP ellipsis. 
This ellipsis is constructed via three periods with no additional 
spacing: U+002E U+002 EU+002E under the covers. (Spaces between the 
codes here have been added for readability.)

That construction is not sufficient. Ironically, the most commonly 
needed ellipsis is not the one defined by Unicode. The more common need 
is for something constructed with three-periods separated by three 
non-breaking-spaces. I.e., something like U+002E U+00A0 U+002E U+00A0 
U+002E. Again, treated as a solitary character and unbreakable. And, of 
course there are repercussions if it lives next to a sentence-ending 
period, or if it is adjacent to a quotation mark. Etc.

What most writers do to get around this issue is find-and-replace all 
ellipsis characters with three periods spaced out. But that doesn't word 
wrap correctly. Slightly more savvy writers find-and-replace all 
ellipsis characters with three periods separated by a non-breaking space 
(see above). Or they change the character spacing style within their 
word-processing application for their three-period "word". Or they just 
use the AP ellipsis and hope no one cares.

It should be noted that grammar and spell checkers see these 
user-generated constructions as errors.

This is ugly. There really needs to be a Unicode character that supports 
the Chicago ellipsis.

None of the word processing packages builds any robust workaround for 
this. LaTeX has an ellipsis package to work around this and the 
associated complexities 
(https://tug.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/ellipsis/ellipsis.pdf is 
really worth the read), but that's not ideal. LaTeX is not software 
designed for the Everyman.

I hear rumor that some typefaces come with stylistic alternatives to 
address this, but that's not the case with any typeface that I have ever 
had to use as required by a publisher (namely New Times Roman). Plus, 
that's . . . kludgy.

So . . . please. Someone. Advocate for supporting a spaced-out ellipsis 
so that all of us who have to adhere to a standard that is not the AP 
Style don't have to do bizarre find-and-replacey things or other 
workaronds. Newspapers are dead, haven't you heard? 😉

We all have access to an em-dashes and en-dashes and other dashes. A 
Chicago-styled ellipsis (for lack of a better nomenclature) is way way 
overdue IMHO

What think y'all? Note, I just joined the mailing list in order to voice 
this. Be kind please. :)

Cheers. -t


P.S. NOTE: This topic has been touched upon a bit in the past, but not 
quite exactly the same ask. (Reference: 
https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2006-m01/0164.html) That 
thread devolved into lovely poetry. Worth the read. ;) I digress . . .


-- 
t0dd

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20230417/9dbde1bd/attachment.sig>