Re: search/replace program

[cld@xxxxxxxx (Carl Distefano)]

Reply to notes from:
 Bill Troop  Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:59:27 -0500
 WooF  Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:06:47 -0500 (EST)
 Leslie Bialler  Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:43:51 -0500
 Timothy Olson  Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:54:27 -0600

BT> There is no absolute rule, but see Bringhurst's The Elements of
BT> Typographic Style, an invaluable handbook. His position --
BT> somewhat extreme -- is that punctuation should always be set
BT> in roman.

Even if the punctuation is part of the italicized matter? That does
sound extreme. What's the rationale, I wonder?

LB> Columbia University Press instructs its editorialistas to make
LB> certain that punctuation following any word in italics or bold
LB> shall be set in roman type.

Bringhurst's rule again. Hmmm. A foolish consistency?

WooF> Punctuation marks which look different in the normal and the
WooF> italic font follow logic: In the question above, the question
WooF> mark is not part of the name of the movie. Punctuation marks
WooF> which look the same in the normal and the italic fonts (period,
WooF> comma, single and double quotation marks) should be in the same
WooF> font as the immediately preceding word, in order that the
WooF> spacing (technical term: "kerning") will come out right.

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?

TO> According to our house style manual:
TO>
TO> Punctuation is usually set in the style of the immediately
TO> preceding word (roman, italic, bold, etc.). When a sentence
TO> ends with an italic title containing a question mark or
TO> exclamation point, the (?) or (!) should only be set in italic
TO> if it is part of the title. Otherwise set it in roman.
TO>
TO> This is taken from the Chicago Manual of Style 5.5*6; 6.71

This sounds like the kerning rationale again. Fascinating stuff.
Unruliness rules!

--
Carl Distefano
cld@xxxxxxxx
http://users.datarealm.com/xywwweb/