RE: search/replace program

["Ambos, Paul" PAMBOS@xxxxxxxx]

Actually, the Blue Book (17 edition) says explicitly to italicize
punctuation only within italicized material; punctuation following
italicized material is to be Roman. The edition I first worked with (I
think the 11th), however, had no stated rule as to italicizing punctuation,
but the printed examples had punctuation following italics in italics as
well.

Regards,

Paul Ambos
pambos@xxxxxxxx



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	cld@xxxxxxxx [SMTP:cld@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent:	Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:02 AM
> To:	XyWrite List
> Subject:	Re: search/replace program
>
>
. . .

> In general, I like the "logical" approach. For what it's worth, it's
> the style decreed by A Uniform System of Citation, the "Blue Book" of
> citation form that's de rigueur in U.S. law journals (but more honored
> in the breach by practicing lawyers). But lately I've warmed to the
> view that logic sometimes has to bow to aesthetic considerations. If
> it's distracting or downright ugly, it can't be right. Nobody is
> supposed to *notice* these things.
>
> A similar dilemma pertains to quotation marks: Does punctuation go
> before or after the close quote? If I'm not mistaken, British usage
> is "logical", whereas in U.S. publishing the punctuation always goes
> inside the close quote, whether it really belongs there or not. Until
> recently, I've resisted this convention. Adding marks to a quotation
> that weren't in the original -- it goes against the grain. But, I
> have to admit... with proportional fonts, it looks nicer. (But maybe
> marks-where-they-really-oughta-go look nicer to Brits?) In any case,
> it's Blue Book form, and the done thing at my workplace (where,
> coincidentally, proportional fonts reign). So my current position is:
> marks inside with proportional fonts destined for the printer,
> otherwise where-they-really-oughta-go. A foolish inconsistency?
>
. . . .
> --
> Carl Distefano
> cld@xxxxxxxx
> http://users.datarealm.com/xywwweb/