TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: Best Practice for reviewing documents? From:"Joe Malin" <jmalin -at- tuvox -dot- com> To:"Laura Lemay" <llemay -at- gmail -dot- com>, "Peter Neilson" <neilson -at- alltel -dot- net> Date:Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:16:36 -0800
This person forgot that the purpose of writing is to be clear. Following
writing rules is secondary to that.
I vividly remember a copyediting assignment in school. It was the first
"real" assignment, and I worked hard to research and follow *all* the
rules and write *very* clearly. My teacher gave me a "D". She said that
I had not put in *any* queries to the writer. She maintained that what
*I* had done was worse than the original article!
I didn't argue the grade, and so I remember her lesson quite well.
I respect and admire good editors. I wish I had one to work with; I'd
become a better writer.
jmalin -at- tuvox -dot- com
The views expressed in this document are those of the sender, and do not
necessarily reflect those of TuVox, Inc.
From: techwr-l-bounces+jmalin=tuvox -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+jmalin=tuvox -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf
Of Laura Lemay
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:02 AM
To: Peter Neilson
Subject: Re: Best Practice for reviewing documents?
On 12/20/05, Peter Neilson <neilson -at- alltel -dot- net> wrote:
> Amen! I was both the writer and the SME for a book, and after I had
> signed off the camera-ready copy someone in editorial took it back and
> redid the whole thing, changing hundreds of instances of "boolean"
> (the name of a data type) to "Boolean" on the grounds that George
> Boole was a person, and thus the name required capitalization.
Ask me about the copy editor who went through my Java book after I had
signed off on it and edited all my code samples. Obivously when I wrote
i-- I must have meant i(emdash). And the divide character /?
Turn it into a real typographical divide (line with two dots) because
that's more typographically correct.
I still get angry email from readers about it. Just try finding the
line-with-two-dots character on your keyboard.
Agree with the final final final signoff for the SME. No touching after
Now Shipping -- WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word! Easily create online
Help. And online anything else. Redesigned interface with a new
project-based workflow. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l