W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: Parens and brackets for links

From: Ishida, Richard <Richard.Ishida@gbr.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:17:42 -0000
Message-ID: <8EAC52A94CD8D411A01000805FBB37766F809F@gbrwgcms02.wgc.gbr.xerox.com>
To: "'Susan Lesch'" <lesch@w3.org>, "'spec-prod@w3.org'" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Cc: "'i18n-editor@w3.org'" <i18n-editor@w3.org>
Hi Susan,

Thanks for your comments.  I agree with all you propose.

Cheers,
Richard.

X______________________
Richard Ishida
Globalisation Consultant,
International Document & User Interface Design
Xerox GKLS
tel: +44 1707 353395 (Voicemail always available)
http://www.xerox-emea.com/globaldesign/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susan Lesch [mailto:lesch@w3.org]
> Sent: 13 October 2001 09:06
> To: Ishida, Richard; 'spec-prod@w3.org'
> Cc: 'i18n-editor@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: Parens and brackets for links
> 
> 
> Hello, Richard,
> 
> >  The Manual of Style includes the following example:
> >
> >  ... as is done for the 'page' property of CSS2 ([CSS2], 
> section 13.3.2).
> >
> >  The question recently arose, should be parens be used when 
> there is no "...
> >  section 13.3.2"? (They are not used by the Manual of Style).
> 
> Maybe the introduction to punctuation in the Chicago Manual 
> 5.2 applies:
> 
>   "The tendency to use all the punctuation that the grammatical
>    structure of the material suggests is referred to as close (klos)
>    punctuation. It is a practice that was more common in the past, and
>    though it may be helpful when the writing is elaborate, it can,
>    when misused, produce an uninviting choppiness. There is a tendency
>    today, on the other hand, to punctuate only when necessary to
>    prevent misreading. Most contemporary writers and editors lean
>    toward this open style of punctuation yet preserve a measure of
>    subjectivity and discretion."
> 
> Is that enough to support your view?
> 
> I admit to using some extra commas in my life.
> 
> >  Eg.
> >  ... as applications of XML 1.0 [XML].
> >
> >  or
> >
> >  ... as applications of XML 1.0 ([XML]).
> 
> The first looks preferable.
> 
> >  The above being different from:
> >
> >  for specifications such as [XML 1.0] and [CSS2].
> 
> Here we cut a corner too quickly. What do you think of this instead?
> 
>    for specifications such as XML 1.0 [XML1] and CSS2 [CSS2].
> 
> >  (I prefer no parens).
> 
> I agree.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 07:17:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:11 GMT