- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:06:28 +0000
- To: www-style@w3.org
- CC: Adam Kuehn <akuehn@nc.rr.com>
Adam Kuehn wrote: > Although most authorities agree that the commas after "HTML" and "XML" > are optional, including them is grammatically correct and in this case > is probably the better practice. On first encountering this sentence, a > reader may well interpret "in HTML element names" as a complete phrase > and only re-think that construction upon reaching the word "and". Using > the comma following each brief introductory phrase prevents this from > happening. (Incidentally, your proposed alternative is probably > incorrect, as well. The semicolon should be a comma in your proposed > phrasing, according to most style guides. One would use a semicolon > only if the conjunction were removed.) Briefly, yes, but not for the reasons given; the real ambiguity is that without the comma. "HTML elements names" may be mis- interpreted as a noun phrase, and backtracking forced when the "are" is reached rather than the "but". The proposed semi- colon is overkill, but one can see the justification -- there are simply too many commas otherwise. I would personally cast > For example, in HTML, element names are case-insensitive, but in XML, they are case-sensitive. as For example, in HTML, element names are case-insensitive, whereas in XML they are case-sensitive.
Received on Saturday, 31 December 2005 16:06:43 UTC