Chicago/MLA ellipsis versus the Unicode defined AP ellipsis

[Asmus Freytag]

When copy editors tell you (on their websites) that they insist on the 
use sequences to meet their style requirements, then that's good enough 
for me to settle what a _descriptive _approach to this should be. Which 
is to say that once you want specific control of spacing, use of a 
sequence is established practice. And we are in the process of 
acknowledging that in the text of the standard.

A./

On 4/22/2023 7:29 AM, Jukka K. Korpela via Unicode wrote:
> 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/20230422/1c2dbece/attachment.htm>