Re: [Groff] Handling '...'

[Ted Harding]

On 22-Jun-09 21:37:31, Mike Bianchi wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:54:27PM +0200, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
>> > [...] since typographers and designers had never been happy
>> > with the full word space [...]
>> 
>> Any citations on this?  The typophile forum seems divided
>> on the issue.  Chicago apparently specifies a 1/3 em space
>> between dots.
> 
> Ah, the differences of opinion.  Ever it has been so.
> The trick is to construct the work so that when faced with the
> "required change" one keeps one's sanity.
> 
> It is clear to me that this is another case where What You See
> Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) typesetting is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> Advantage groff, latex and the like.
> 
> The ellipsis in any particular work is usually used to convey some
> literal or stylistic meaning.  That says to me that the _important_
> thing is to use it consistently through out the work.
> 
>               He thought . . . and then acted.
> 
> So the right thing (to me) to do, in the groff context, is to define
> an  ellipsis  object, such as
> 
>                   .ds ellipsis ".\ .\ ."
> 
> and then _always_ use _that_ object in the text when _that_ meaning
> is to be conveyed.
> 
>               He thought \*[ellipsis] and then acted.
> 
> Better yet is to define the object in terms of the meaning, so it is
> clear to the author what the original meaning was.
> 
>                   .ds long_pause ".\ .\ ."
> 
>               He thought \*[long_pause] and then acted.
> 
> Then, when the editor insists that the typography for a particular
> meaning be different, the correction is both easy and localized to
> just those places that should be affected.
> -- 
>  Mike Bianchi

Mike, that is exactly my view of, and approach to, such matters!
My original comment (which seems to have been the booster rocket
for this thread) was just one instance of possible views of the
"three dots". And just one way of implementing it.

There are various similar tweaks which one can easily set up
in groff. For example, for use when expressing numerical ranges
(such as "10-19"), I have four different "en-dashes". The font
default is \[en], and this looks (to me) fine in "11\[en]19".

.char \[eN] \[en]\^    For use with "51\[En]60" and the like
.char \[En] \^\[en]    For use with "10\[eN]19" and the like
.char \[EN] \^\[en]\^  For use with "50\[EN]60" and the like

These are really intended for numerical ranges in running text,
and should probably be avoided in tables if vertical alignment
of numerical data is desirable. So it always depends on context!

Ted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 22-Jun-09                                       Time: 23:55:01
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------