[rfc-i] The hazards of being an editor...

Harald Tveit Alvestrand harald at alvestrand.no
Tue Apr 13 11:17:27 PDT 2004


In this particular case, the gods of syntax are not only wrong, but 
actively malicious, and should be exorcised, not worshipped. The purpose of 
the quote is to isolate the token "Administrator", not to quote a sentence 
from another source; this is the most common use of quotes in RFCs, I 
believe.

My opinion.

                      Harald

--On 8. april 2004 11:27 -0700 Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU> wrote:

>
>
> An RFC author sent us the following during the authors' 48 hour review:
>
>   *>
>   *>
>   *> Page 15 (This one I am not sure, but believe the ',' must be outside
>   *> the quotes):
>   *> OLD:
>   *>     In order to apply the the template to all interfaces that have a
> role   *>     match of "Administrator,"
>   *>
>   *> NEW:
>   *>     In order to apply the the template to all interfaces that have a
> role   *>     match of "Administrator",
>   *>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   *>
>
> We replied:
>
> Ah, that problem! Strunk & White, "The Elements of Style," say:
>
> 	Typographical usage dictates that the comma be inside the marks,
> 	though logically it often seems not to belong there.
>
> The RFC Editor prides itself on being logical, so we are willing to accept
> either form.  However, the Gods of Syntax do seem to favor ,"
>
> RFC Editor
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
>







More information about the rfc-interest mailing list