From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: Typos in the manual Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:46:22 +0000 Message-ID: <87zkpvwnjl.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <20110208202529.GD16805@gmx.de> <874o88kbbs.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <8CD9B68D2F170D1-714-CAC@webmail-d099.sysops.aol.com> <20110215211443.GG24361@gmx.de> <8CD9B775B2E1E50-714-23E5@webmail-d099.sysops.aol.com> <87mxlw7s3i.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <8CD9B9A6430A5CE-714-4AA4@webmail-d099.sysops.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297900007 14555 80.91.229.12 (16 Feb 2011 23:46:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:46:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org To: Francis Southern Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 17 00:46:39 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ppr4w-0000Mw-TW for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:46:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44514 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ppr4w-0003RK-GQ for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:46:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47554 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ppr4r-0003RA-2V for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:46:34 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ppr4p-00026n-Oq for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:46:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]:38508) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ppr4p-00026f-Fl for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:46:31 -0500 Original-Received: from arudy (unknown [78.145.19.199]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CDDB1F6729; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:46:24 +0000 (GMT) Original-Received: from neil-laptop (unknown [192.168.11.4]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CFEC38013; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:46:22 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: (Francis Southern's message of "Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:30:41 -0600") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-Received-From: 80.84.72.33 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:5160 Archived-At: Francis Southern writes: > On 15 February 2011 20:43, Mark Harig wrote: >> >> This is the crux of the argument. =C2=A0Should the GNU Guile manual be >> written using British English or American English, both in grammar and >> spelling? =C2=A0American English usage rules require a comma, while Brit= ish >> English requires that there not to be a comma. =C2=A0There needs to be a >> decision about which set of usage rules should be used in the primary >> version of the manual, and then differences can be resolved in >> translations. =C2=A0But whichever is decided, it should not be "use a co= mma >> if you feel it's needed; otherwise, leave it out." =C2=A0Reference manua= ls >> are not the place for personal style. =C2=A0Let's leave that for tutoria= ls. >> > > While I agree that a consistent style is desirable for a manual, You know, actually I disagree with that. The Guile manual is around 800 pages long, and I think it does no harm at all to have a little variability, or for different voices to come through here and there. It's important for the technical material to be correct and clearly described, of course. In my view the other two high level requirements are that there should be an overall sense of narrative through the manual, and that any individual section or related group of sections should read well in their own context. Clearly, in the world in general, there are significant forces that encourage closely following a consistent style: basically all commercial organisations, and in particular journalism. But I think that's because they are big organisations with lots of people, and it's easier overall to lay down rules than to apply judgement in each case. As things stand at the moment, I don't think that needs to apply to the Guile manual. > I > just wanted to point out that the issue at hand is definitely not a > British vs. American English debate. > For example, although he has nothing to say on the matter (that I > could find), you'll notice that H.W. Fowler quite consistently uses a > comma after "i.e." and "e.g." in his book, "The King's English" [0]. > I sincerely doubt that anyone would dare to call his English > Americanised. Thanks. And another big British pro-comma reference is the Economist's style guide. So I accept that, democratically speaking, I've lost the argument. Nevertheless, this isn't something that I personally want to spend time on. I think there's loads more important stuff to review and improve in the manual, and I'd rather focus on that. On the other hand, if there are more contributors on board in future, and one of them wants to work on this, I won't object. I hope that we are now approaching a point where the manual is technically complete and correct, so please - anyone looking at the manual - do regard it all as fair game, report any mistakes or problems in understanding, check that the examples actually work, and so on. Regards, Neil