https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154766
toddwar...@duck.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|WONTFIX |FIXED --- Comment #15 from toddwar...@duck.com --- (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #14) > OK, this is stupid. > > We provide a single glyph substitution via Autocorrect mechanism (":.:" or > ".*...") to replace the Unicode U+2026 as a single glyph. And would support > an OpenType Stylistic alternative for any selected font that provides the > wider spaced gylph. Many folks already do something like this (well, those who aren't afraid to dive into those menus), minus the stylistic alternative since that's very typeface specific. > And, our autocorrect sequences can be customized to user's preferences to not > assign the U+2026 glyph. Yup. I do this myself. As do so many others. Alas, it is a workaround. > The "discussion" 3 dots, or 3 dots separated by spaces as *depending* on CSL > or *prescribed* in some style guide/book is tangential (i.e. enhancement of > bug 121945). That RFE is citation specific which is related, I suppose. And a great ask. But style adherence covers all of the text. > Point is we already support any reasonable use case for handling the > horizontal ellipsis. LibreOffice does not. And I know of no office suite that does. LaTeX does, because, of course. It's a typesetting package. I like LyX, but geez. I'm sure I could produce a .docx (required by publishers, though I do push them to accept .odt) via LyX, but it is LyX. Fun reading: https://tug.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/ellipsis/ellipsis.pdf > Beyond that yes we could do an edit engine filter to assign some flag to the > "..." sequence (when autocorrect is suppressed) to pass to a grammar > checking extension, e.g. LightProof. But don't see that as pressing--and an > easy => WF. Awesome! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.