FW: (on behalf of Mark Little) [bt-spec] BTP Issue 58 : Minoreditorials

[Peter Furniss <peter.furniss@choreology.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:m.c.little@ncl.ac.uk]
Sent: 11 November 2001 20:04
To: Peter Furniss; bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [bt-spec] BTP Issue 58 : Minor editorials


Peter, I won't be able to post to the spec mailing list from this email, so
could you forward this for me please?

Cheers,

Mark.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Furniss <peter.furniss@choreology.com>
To: bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org <bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Sunday, November 11, 2001 13:51
Subject: RE: [bt-spec] BTP Issue 58 : Minor editorials


I've changed my mind on some of these.  On checking with Fowler's Modern
English Usage, it says that i.e. should not be followed by a comma unless
the sense requires one, to introduce a parenthesis for instance.
Accordingly, I propose rejecting the minor editorials that change "i.e." to
"i.e.,".  I don't believe any of them require a comma.

On e.g., Fowler says "italics, and a following comma" are unnecessary but
not wrong. (It also says they should be reserved for footnotes or very
concise writing - I assume this specification should be counted concise,
even if it is long).  However, commas after e.g. look funny to me, so I
propose rejecting the "e.g." to "e.g.," changes too.

------------------------

I don't this is as cut-and-dry as Fowler may state - I can probably cite as
many references that say do put a comma as you can that say don't. At the
end of the day we simply need to vote, and be consistent. (Are we going to
reference Fowler all the way through the spec. ;-)? I don't have a hang-up
on this one-way or another.

Mark.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENDER : Dr. Mark Little, Architect (Transactions), Hewlett Packard
EMAIL  : mark_little@hp.com