>> * Alex and Lauri seem to argue that the "correct" (they don't seem to >> disagree on that) punctuation marks are hard-to-impossible to use, and >> are against requiring them. (It's not clear to me if they at least agree >> to "allow" or "encourage" their use.) > >This is actually closer to how I feel on the issue. I don't want to >construct unnecessary barriers for editors or users. I would prefer >to, as Jeff so succinctly put it, "err on the side of inclusion".
I quite agree. I think it all boils down to one question: So long as we allow standard punctuation to be used as 100% ok, when we're not yet ready to present a copy/paste alternative (via master lists or an eventual generic works structure), can we then at least permit the use of dashes, en-dashes, em-dashes, and language-correct (for the CSG language style being used) quotation marks as also ok, and mark such "better" punctuation as the encouraged preference of the two for which is used within a finalized master works list? That's really what I was trying to get at in the 1-2-3 structure I suggested in http://www.nabble.com/-Clean-up-CSG--Typography-%28was%3A-Capitalization-%28and-placement%29%29-to15175325s2885.html Brian _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
