Chicago/MLA ellipsis versus the Unicode defined AP ellipsis

[Asmus Freytag]

Given the facts as stated, the conclusion would be that this should be 
proposed for a variation sequence.

Logically, that is the best alternative when there needs to a be 
distinct appearance that is selectable by context, but where that 
context runs orthogonal to font selection.

The other consideration is that the two forms of the ellipsis are both 
otherwise identical in meaning. That is, if I cut and paste text from a 
news story into another document, the meaning doesn't change. Going in 
and adding/removing variation selectors would fine tune the appearance, 
which is what is desired, not change the nature of the punctuation.

The only question would be whether to standardize two sequences or only 
one. If two are defined, the original character (if not part of a 
variation sequence) would have no preferred rendition.

In order for any action to be taken, this would need to be written up as 
a proposal and submitted.

A./

PS: this is not so different from cases like upright vs. slanted 
integral signs in math. For those and similar examples, the Standard 
recognizes that the duplicating character codes would imply differences 
in semantics and that the choice needs to be made without the need to 
replace the entire font. Hence the solution of standardizing a variation 
sequence.


On 4/17/2023 12:50 PM, t0dd via Unicode wrote:
> 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 . . .
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20230417/627a81fe/attachment-0001.htm>