Daniel Barclay wrote: > > Martin Bernauer wrote: > >> ... >> >>> ... Your 'quote' is in fact a misquote, since what you wrote as >>> 'SHOULD' is in fact 'should'. >> >> >> >> ... I don't see my >> quotation as a misquote, I just used it to emphasize what is the most >> relevant part of the quote. > > > If you emphasize something in a quotation, you should indicate that > the emphasis is from you (e.g., "[emphasis mine]" or > "[emphasis added]"). > > (Alternatively, use a form of emphasis that isn't used anywhere in > the original (so it's obvious that it's from your quoting of the > original text and not actually from the original text). For example, > using the surrounding-asterisks style ("... whatever *should* be ...") > when the original doesn't ever use that style makes it fairly clear > that it's your emphasis and not the original's.)) > > Daniel > > In Martin's defence the original does not use 'SHOULD' anywhere, the problem is that 'SHOULD' is conventionalized by RFC 2119, and I read Martin's quotation in light of that convention JeremyReceived on Monday, 19 July 2004 15:58:43 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:50 UTC