"Conventions used" section

Subject: "Conventions used" section
From: Elna Tymes <etymes -at- LTS -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 15:51:55 -0700

Scott Miller commented (re: Conventions Used section):
> >Waste of paper. Provides no useful information. The only useful
> >convention-type info I've seen is how to read syntax stuff, like [stuff
> >in brackets is optional], and also what language programming examples
> >are written in. Otherwise, stuff like "key names are presented in
> >all-caps bold" is self-evident.

Let me give you a different view on that. Not only do I include a
Conventions Used section for anything that might be misunderstood, but I
make a special effort to explain anything *like* a convention for the
really naive user (and there are still bucketloads of those folks out

In the above paragraph, for instance, I used **'s to indicate emphasis,
since boldface would be lost in transmission. In a project I'm working
on, our HTML translation template is so severely restricted that we
can't use any boldface or any quotes. (We're coming from Frame, and
going through several levels of filters before we actually get to
HTML.) Further, we have to distinguish between THIS system, the system
from which it was derived, and the language conventions that underly
both systems, because THIS system is a joint venture between two
well-known companies. Again, we are using the Conventions Used section
to explain how things are differentiated.

Elna Tymes
Los Trancos Systems

Previous by Author: Re: Does grammar matter?
Next by Author: An editing on-screen alternative
Previous by Thread: Novice question
Next by Thread: Re: Was Pros and Cons of including writer's name; now conventions used

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads