- From: Barry Caplan <bcaplan@i18n.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:51:12 -0800
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>, "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>
At 02:30 PM 2/25/2004 -0500, Martin Duerst wrote: >At 12:41 04/02/25 +0000, Richard Ishida wrote: > >>> No ampersands! >>> >>> Headings like "Document structure & metadata" look odd, use "and" >>> unless you really refer to the & character (like in XML character >>> references). >> >>As a native speaker it doesn't look odd to me, and it makes for faster >>reading, so I'm not convinced on this one. > >As a non-native speaker, I think "and" is definitely better. >I don't buy the 'faster reading' at all. But it may be slower >reading for people not very familiar with English. "&" is an >abbreviation, and I don't think abbreviations are a good thing >in a title. > >Regards, Martin. As a native speaker, I agree with Martin. I can't quite place my finger on why it looks odd - perhaps Strunk and White or another other style guide discusses the issue. But it feels like using an "&" implies a closer relationship, more intertwined somehow, then just "and". "And" to me implies an ordinary sequential list, where "&" somehow implies that the items in the list are to be treated as a single collective unit. But that is just a vague feeling I am trying to express...it is far from obvious to this native speaker. And frankly, I can imagine this is the sort of style thing that is different in different places - Richard and I are both native English speakers but not from the same side of the Atlantic Ocean. Best, Barry
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 15:50:51 UTC