|Posted by:||Jukka K. Korpela (jkorpe…@cs.tut.fi)|
|Date:||Sun, 18 Dec 2016|
18.12.2016, 15:16, Stan Brown wrote:
> I've been validating some pages at validator.w3.org. It had a problem
> with … for the ellipsis character, and I can understand that
> since that's Windows character set, not iso-8859-1. So I changed them
> all to ….
That was a correct move in principle, though not really needed these
days. Browsers actually interpret … as the ellipsis character (and
this is even documented in HTML5). I don’t think you can find a browser
that doesn’t, except perhaps in a museum of technology.
> But I'm wondering about browser coverage. Is a significant number of
> users likely to see a garbage character now, instead of ellipsis?
No. I don’t think any user is.
> Should I just replace it with three dots instead?
A matter of style. The ellipsis character “…” is supposed to have dots
set more apart from each other than a sequence of three periods (FULL
STOP) characters, “...”, but this does not always happen. Apparently, in
a monospace font, it is just the opposite, very much so. Even in
proportional fonts, the design is not always what you might expect.
Using the ellipsis character is fine if you have reasonable expectations
for having it rendered in a manner where the dots are spaced acceptably.
Ellipsis posted by Stan Brown on Sun, 18 Dec 2016