From: Leo Broukhis (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jun 28 2008 - 11:31:38 CDT
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Philippe Verdy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Actually you should never use U+2026 for a grammatical
>> ellipsis. Use three periods. And if you are picky, increase
>> tracking. Or commission your local type designer to implement
>> an OpenType feature to replace the three-period sequence by
>> your "ellipsis" glyph.
> I also do agree that the grammatical ellipsis should never look different
> from the succession of three full stops (and so there is no good reason not
> to use regular full stops). Using the encoded "ellipsis" looks ugly,
> especially when using monospaced fonts, because its dots are too small
> compared to other punctuation signs.
A three-dot ellipsis is not much of a problem in languages that do not allow
combining it with other punctuation. If it is to be combined with a ! or a ?,
the size and alignment of dots should match. The period dot in some fonts is
larger than the dot at the bottom of ! and ? - the latter look more
like the ellipsis dots.
Similarly, in languages that subsume an ellipsis dot into !.. or ?..,
a two dot leader is likely to be used in such cases.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 28 2008 - 11:34:24 CDT