Some things about typesetting "et al." seem obvious: make sure the period is followed by \
unless it's also the end of the sentence, use ~
before if you don't want it to end up alone in a new line.
What about the space in the middle, though? Reasonable options seem to include:
et al.
et~al.
et\hspace{.16667em}al.
et\,al.
I could not find any style guide or recommendation online.
Which variant is advisable? Are there citable references about this?
Rationale for half space: while et and al. are technically two words, they form an abbreviation together. Hence, I think the rules of compound abbreviations (e.g. e.\,g.\
) apply.
Also, "al." alone at the start of a line looks weird. And lonely.
biblatex
'senglish.lbx
useset\addabbrvspace al\adddot
where\addabbrvspace
is a "normal" space penalized by a special abbreviation penalty. (biblatex.def
hasThe counter 'abbrvpenalty' holds the penalty used in short or abbreviated bibliography strings. For example, a linebreak in expressions such as "et al." or "ed. by" is unfortunate, but should still be possible to prevent overfull boxes. We use TeX's \hyphenpenalty [...] as the default value. The idea is making TeX treat the whole expression as if it were a single, hyphenatable word as far as line-breaking is concerned.
)et\,al.
but after seeing the result it find it does look a bit cramped so I would go withet~al.
. Withe.\,g.
the thin space looks better because the.
provides some visual spacing.z.\,B.
, but I'm not sure what they say aboutet al.
. One could argue that the "et" isn't even abbreviated.e.\,g.
, then I'd expect you to be usinge.\,a.
, which few would be able to recognize. However, it is fine to discourage the break, asbiblatex
does.