Chicago/MLA ellipsis versus the Unicode defined AP ellipsis

[Jukka K. Korpela]

CMoS describes the ellipsis as “spaced dots” for English, but it also
describes the practice of “unspaced dots” for other languages. Apparently,
organizations and people may prefer unspaced dots for English, and probably
also spaced dots for languages where unspaced dots are normal. Some (many?)
languages have no standard on such issues.

A simple interpretation is that “spaced dots” is U+2026 and “unspaced dots”
is U+002E U+002E U+002E, This way, the two practices can be expressed at
the character level. This is significant in a text containing multiple
languages, because it would be normal to preserve language-dependent style
of punctuation (like we do for various quotations marks, for example).

I think the Unicode Standard is somewhat vague in this issue, possibly
trying to cover a wider range of variation in the typography of ellipsis:
“U+2026 horizontal ellipsis is the ordinary Unicode character intended for
the representation
of an ellipsis in text and typically shows the dots separated with a
moderate degree of spacing.” The word “moderate” might be read as
suggesting that it’s not really sufficient for spaced dots but too much for
unspaced dots, i.e. a compromise or neutral position that is not suitable
for either style. Perhaps it should say more clearly that U+2026 is
expected to be rendered as spaced dots and that a sequence of three U+002E
is expected to be renders as unspaced dots. More detailed tuning of spacing
is typographic and not a Unicode issue,

Jukka
https://jkorpela.fi/

ma 17. huhtik. 2023 klo 23.00 t0dd via Unicode (unicode at corp.unicode.org)
kirjoitti:

> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20230422/6d86f470/attachment.htm>