<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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 <u>descriptive </u>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.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">A./<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/22/2023 7:29 AM, Jukka K. Korpela
via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGHxYa42qP=4PHgNWbFh52FMowieSgPPveZHffmwhr4DCYN0TA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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<br>
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,<br>
<br>
Jukka<br>
<a href="https://jkorpela.fi/" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://jkorpela.fi/</a></div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">ma 17. huhtik. 2023 klo 23.00
t0dd via Unicode (<a href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>)
kirjoitti:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello
all,<br>
<br>
Narrative writers working in the English language, and in
particular the <br>
US (I can't speak for the rest of the English-language world),
are <br>
generally required to adhere to the Chicago Manual of Style
(CMoS) when <br>
submitting manuscripts and screenplays for publication. News
people <br>
generally follow the AP (Associated Press) style. The rub:
they each use <br>
a different ellipsis. The CMoS requires three dots spaced
apart. The AP, <br>
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 <br>
Chicago style or they are indifferent. For example, in school
many of <br>
you were required to follow the MLA style guide. That also
requires a <br>
spaced-out "Chicago" ellipsis (I am just going to call it that
from here <br>
on out). Conversely, if you wrote for the Psychology Review,
you follow <br>
the APA style which adheres to the "AP" ellipsis.<br>
<br>
Unicode only supplies one horizontal ellipsis: U+2026. The AP
ellipsis. <br>
This ellipsis is constructed via three periods with no
additional <br>
spacing: U+002E U+002 EU+002E under the covers. (Spaces
between the <br>
codes here have been added for readability.)<br>
<br>
That construction is not sufficient. Ironically, the most
commonly <br>
needed ellipsis is not the one defined by Unicode. The more
common need <br>
is for something constructed with three-periods separated by
three <br>
non-breaking-spaces. I.e., something like U+002E U+00A0 U+002E
U+00A0 <br>
U+002E. Again, treated as a solitary character and
unbreakable. And, of <br>
course there are repercussions if it lives next to a
sentence-ending <br>
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 <br>
ellipsis characters with three periods spaced out. But that
doesn't word <br>
wrap correctly. Slightly more savvy writers find-and-replace
all <br>
ellipsis characters with three periods separated by a
non-breaking space <br>
(see above). Or they change the character spacing style within
their <br>
word-processing application for their three-period "word". Or
they just <br>
use the AP ellipsis and hope no one cares.<br>
<br>
It should be noted that grammar and spell checkers see these <br>
user-generated constructions as errors.<br>
<br>
This is ugly. There really needs to be a Unicode character
that supports <br>
the Chicago ellipsis.<br>
<br>
None of the word processing packages builds any robust
workaround for <br>
this. LaTeX has an ellipsis package to work around this and
the <br>
associated complexities <br>
(<a
href="https://tug.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/ellipsis/ellipsis.pdf"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://tug.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/ellipsis/ellipsis.pdf</a>
is <br>
really worth the read), but that's not ideal. LaTeX is not
software <br>
designed for the Everyman.<br>
<br>
I hear rumor that some typefaces come with stylistic
alternatives to <br>
address this, but that's not the case with any typeface that I
have ever <br>
had to use as required by a publisher (namely New Times
Roman). Plus, <br>
that's . . . kludgy.<br>
<br>
So . . . please. Someone. Advocate for supporting a spaced-out
ellipsis <br>
so that all of us who have to adhere to a standard that is not
the AP <br>
Style don't have to do bizarre find-and-replacey things or
other <br>
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 <br>
Chicago-styled ellipsis (for lack of a better nomenclature) is
way way <br>
overdue IMHO<br>
<br>
What think y'all? Note, I just joined the mailing list in
order to voice <br>
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 <br>
quite exactly the same ask. (Reference: <br>
<a
href="https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2006-m01/0164.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2006-m01/0164.html</a>)
That <br>
thread devolved into lovely poetry. Worth the read. ;) I
digress . . .<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
t0dd<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>