<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Given the facts as stated, the
conclusion would be that this should be proposed for a variation
sequence.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.<br>
<br>
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.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">In order for any action to be taken,
this would need to be written up as a proposal and submitted.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">A./</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/17/2023 12:50 PM, t0dd via Unicode
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:682eadc0-87bc-71b0-9144-fadba65ee8c2@protonmail.com">Hello
all,
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.)
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
It should be noted that grammar and spell checkers see these
user-generated constructions as errors.
<br>
<br>
This is ugly. There really needs to be a Unicode character that
supports the Chicago ellipsis.
<br>
<br>
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
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://tug.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/ellipsis/ellipsis.pdf">https://tug.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/ellipsis/ellipsis.pdf</a>
is really worth the read), but that's not ideal. LaTeX is not
software designed for the Everyman.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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? 😉
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
<br>
What think y'all? Note, I just joined the mailing list in order to
voice this. Be kind please. :)
<br>
<br>
Cheers. -t
<br>
<br>
<br>
P.S. NOTE: This topic has been touched upon a bit in the past, but
not quite exactly the same ask. (Reference:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2006-m01/0164.html">https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2006-m01/0164.html</a>)
That thread devolved into lovely poetry. Worth the read. ;) I
digress . . .
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>