Ellipsis without brackets — fine tuning

Very much related to this question and its answer, I would like to ask the following:

If I want to indicate omissions in a quotation not by using Text [...] more text. but instead by using Text ... more text. only (without brackets), is there anything I should keep in mind? Or is there something like the \textelp{} macro from csquotes fro bracket-less ellipseis?

So far I used Text \dots\ more text. and I thought, it looked fine. Is there anything unfavourable about it, which I missed and overlooked? Kerning, spacing, you have it?

-
You might be confusing the reader. [...] is a well-recognized way of saying I'm skipping some stuff. Only ellipsis means the original text has ellipsis. – percusse Mar 15 '13 at 15:01
@percusse : I did spent quite some thought on this matter and deliberately chose Text ... more text. – ClintEastwood Mar 15 '13 at 15:05
Yes but do we(the readers) know that you have chosen it so? I don't think so. – percusse Mar 15 '13 at 15:05
@percusse : I don't get your point. My choosing or not choosing is not part of the question. – ClintEastwood Mar 15 '13 at 15:07
The quotations, especially, scientific quotations should follow strict standards. If you omit the brackets they become the original text and not your own modification. You even have to let the reader know that the italics emphasis etc. has been added afterwards. But here you are modifying a well-established standard of skipping text inside a quotation. The reader should be warned for that if you insist on doing so. – percusse Mar 15 '13 at 15:09

You should be aware of the spacing issue. I suggest using \dots in combination with the package ellipsis, because that gives you better control over spacing.

ellipsis makes it easy to fine tune spacing, and takes care of several other spacing issues, for example ellipsis in combination with another full stop.

In case you want to fine tune ellipsis, you change the distance between the dots simply by the command:

\renewcommand{\ellipsisgap}{0.1em} %  or another value


Also, by adding the option [xspace], i.e.

\usepackage[xspace]{ellipsis}


terminating the \dots command by \ is not necessary (but even xspace makes errors, as documented in the manual). If you use ellipsis, remember to load it after hyperref.

And MWE (the font is Palantino):

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

\usepackage[sc]{mathpazo}

\usepackage[xspace]{ellipsis}
\begin{document}

This is a test.

This is a test og \dots and dots.

This is a test og \dots\ and dots.

This is a test og \dots. and dots.

This is a test og \dots\ . and dots.

\end{document}


The result:

-
Thanks, much more elegant than my hackish approach! – benwilfut Mar 15 '13 at 15:48
When using ellipsis with the xspace-option, the result of \dots differs from that of \dots\  and, I guess, the latter should be preferred. So using that option does not seem to make "terminating the \dots command by \  ... not necessary." Or did I miss something? – ClintEastwood Mar 15 '13 at 16:07
@ClintEastwood When you re using \dots I believe ellipsis balances the space before and after the ellipsis. If you are using \dos\ , a normal space is entered. Try using a full stop after the ellipsis, i.e \dots . and \dots\ . and see the difference. – Sveinung Mar 15 '13 at 17:49
@Sveinung : I guess you are right with respect to the full-stop-after-ellipsis-case. Using \dots . produces a very nice result. But still, Text \dots more text. looks a bit weird, when compared to Text \dots\ more text., don't you think? – ClintEastwood Mar 15 '13 at 18:47
@ClintEastwood May be it depends on the font used, because with MinionPro and Palantino (which I tried) the spacing was OK. Optically, the spacing may look different depending on the characters before and after. (Do you use Microtype?). – Sveinung Mar 15 '13 at 19:07

I guess it depends on whom you ask, (please, anyone correct me if I'm wrong!) and it will also depend on the context and other punctuation.

If used mid-sentence, I personally would tend to use a bit less to no space, and I'd definitely try to balance the space before and after the ellipsis, so I'd probably use Text \dots\unkern\ more text. (1) or Text\,\dots\unkern\,more text. (2).

(With CM, I get unbalanced kerning per default, thus the solution above. For other typefaces there might be no difference between (1) and your example.)

But Robert Bringhurst or the Chicago Manual of Style would probably tell you something different ;)

-
I get different results. In my document, your option (2) has the same output as (1), and I obtain output (3) only, when using Text\,\dots\,more text. (with a \, before and after \dots`) – ClintEastwood Mar 15 '13 at 15:29
Ah ok, sorry, could it be that you're using a typeface other than Computer Modern? – benwilfut Mar 15 '13 at 15:41
yes, indeed I do. – ClintEastwood Mar 15 '13 at 16:01