W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2008

RE: text-overflow: ellipsis

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:03:24 +0100
To: "'Ambrose Li'" <ambrose.li@gmail.com>, "'Brad Kemper'" <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Joeri Sebrechts'" <joeri@sebrechts.net>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001101c8f62a$198f9a40$4caecec0$@org>

Ambrose,

Is there a Unicode character for the 6-dot ellipsis?  A quick search
http://rishida.net/scripts/uniview/?search=ellipsis didn't reveal one.

Cheers,
RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of Ambrose Li
> Sent: 02 August 2008 20:15
> To: Brad Kemper
> Cc: Joeri Sebrechts; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: text-overflow: ellipsis
> 
> 
> 2008/8/2 Brad Kemper <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>:
> >
> > If the convention does exist, shouldn't the appropriate character for
the
> > script in use be used? Thus a six dot ellipse (or six periods)
automatically
> > if using Chinese?
> 
> Mostly, in computer user interfaces, the English ellipsis is
> always used (I don't know why). I'd say the convention (of
> actually using a 6-dot ellipsis) does not actually exist.
> 
> So, by "one way or another" I meant (1) if some author feels
> that a three-dot ellipsis is wrong because the Chinese ellipsis
> should have 6 dots, he/she should have the option to use the
> correct one, but (2) if the browser is required to always
> default to the "correct" ellipsis I definitely won't mind :)
> 
> --
> cheers,
> -ambrose
> 
> The 'net used to be run by smart people; now many sites are run by
> idiots. So SAD... (Sites that do spam filtering on mails sent to the
> abuse contact need to be cut off the net...)
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 12:03:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:11 GMT