On Jan 31, 2008 5:55 PM, David K. Gasaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We might have a mindset-difference here. I consider what I read right > > now on my computer _is_ type. > Heh. Did you miss the second part of my reply? Nope, I just wasn't sure whether to read the modal verb as curmudgeonry or not ;-) There is no "may" in my view of the things.
> > But some typographical conventions (eg, use endash > > for intervals and emdash for parenthetic separation) are context > > independent, and that's what we're dealing with here. > > In my mind, the only reason for different dashes is to improve readability of > text > in print (be it physical or virtual) and may or may not be appropriate in a > data > context. I see your point. But wouldn't that apply to almost all punctuation? And to the extent that it doesn't — ie, that punctuation adds meaning — so do things like different dashes. I see no difference in readability between dashes-and endashes–and emdashes—or just putting several dashes---like this. (I only typed them to exemplify readability.) In fact, my opinion is that they are useful because of their _semantics_. That is, dashes form compound words, en-dashes show intervals, and em-dashes form parenthetic asides. The distinction is not essential, in the same sense that commas and question marks are not essential. But they're useful. > >> If that's the only issue we're looking at, I'd say > >> there must be better technical solutions (even quick-and-dirty > >> ones) than "correct typography". > > Absolutely, but in the mean time, we have to pick a standard, and we > > might as well pick the right one. > Are you saying typography is the correct solution to separating the parts of > a title? I'm saying that the three (and other dashes) are simply different characters, and using just one of them would be just like using "." (full stop) instead of comma, question mark and colon, just because the difference between them is subtle. Typography is the best available solution, and we already do this. We put " / " (with spaces) to separate songs on a track, it's a convention, it's subtle, but it works. The dashes are useful in the same way. I honestly think the only opossition to the dashes is that people are kind of afraid of them. Sort of like typographical xenophobia ;-) And it's weird because we already deal with such complex issues that notation should almost pass without notice. It feels like a bunch of mathematicians who understand a proof of Fermat's last theorem, but don't like it because the author used þ instead of a Greek letter as a variable name... An example of non-semantic typography is spacing. Kerning and hair-spaces around emdashes don't change meaning, which is why you won't see me discussing around MB. Those are just aesthetic choice. (Although, we do care for _some_ aesthetic conventions: spaces after commas and full-stops, outside parentheses and quotes, etc, simply because breaking those rules is visually jarring.) > You didn't understand - I was simply admiring your optimism. ;) I might sound optimistic, but I'm dead inside ;) > > I don't agree. It's actually easier than capitalization, [...] > Fair enough, I stated my argument incorrectly. What I should have said is > it requires more *learning* on the part of the users. Most users are already > going to understand title case, but not many are going to already understand > typographical rules. But we're not asking people to become typographers. It's a simple set of rules, and they need to learn them anyway. I mean, if I came to MB the first time, and I needed to add an album, I'd still need to read half a megabyte of guidelines to know that "from" should be capitalized but "for" shouldn't, that I need spaces around "/" when it separates songs, and that subtitles are placed after a colon. None of those is a standard rule. If I wanted to add a classical album, it'd be even worse. (Though I'd probably copy the titles from somewhere if they were available.) Adding a guideline to use a _standard_ typographical feature wouldn't even register on the complexity scale. (In fact, I had to _unlearn_ to use correct quotes when I got here the first time.) > > You mention in a later post that correct typography is harder to > > interpret correctly. Do you think the correct typography in any of > > the things below is harder to interpret? > > Harder to interpret the rules, not harder to interpret a title following > typographical rules. Well, given that the first example was in Romanian, you'd need to know the language to get the title right. And guess what, most Romanian already know where the quotes should go. (They might not care though. But that's another issue.) And for the second, you already have to know the rules and care enough to determine if the last word is a subtitle or an answer. So you already need to determine if you'd use a colon or a dash. Anyone who's crazy enough to go through that effort not only can pick the correct dash, they probably want to ;-) -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." – O.
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
