Oooh! I propose the invisible space 0x00 :-)
Bob
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:14 AM, dipteryx@freeler.nl wrote:
Van: Gregor Hagedorn [mailto:g.m.hagedorn@gmail.com] Verzonden: ma 13-12-2010 16:57
"H.3A.1. The multiplication sign ×, indicating the hybrid nature of a taxon, should be placed so as to express that it belongs with the name or epithet but is not actually part of it. [...] should depend on what best serves readability."
My reading of this would be that a non-breaking space, possibly narrower, would satisfy both this statement and correct typographic typesetting (which does not endorse "M. ×piperita" -- the multiplication sign is designed to be used with spacing).
Actually, it endorses anything, a full space, a half space, no space, or whatever (with sophisticated typography, kerning, anything is possible), as long as it is clear that the multiplication sign is not part of the name. A character that is read by a machine as a space, but by the eye as a not-space is perfectly OK.
I never heard of any natural or higher law that requires a multiplication sign to be used with spacing. Here it is just a typographic character that can be used any which way, just like most any other typographic character. The ICBN uses it without a space, a perfectly acceptable style.
Paul
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content