Talk:LaTeX proofing guidelines
From DPWiki
"removed slashes from examples of fractions" -- Er, why? Has this been discussed somewhere? I don't like it. Laurawisewell 18:40, 6 December 2006 (PST)
- I think it's related to the discussion here. --Acunning40 20:18, 6 December 2006 (PST)
- Are guidelines about likes and dislikes? The previous guidelines weren't explicit about how to treat fractions, nor was practice consistent with the standard proofing guidelines. Removing the slashes was one possibility to get a simple rule that could be applied universally, but met with almost universal revulsion. So now I've tried to make explicit what is expected. Using a solidus is to some extent discretionary (especially when a fractional expression is non-trivial), so we still don't have a watertight guideline. The new example (of where space would be preferable to a solidus in terms of clarity) could no doubt be improved. Dcwilson 21:50, 7 December 2006 (PST)
- You know very well that "like" can mean "am in favour of". As for your example, I would proof it as dy/dx / dz/dy. I don't think we should tell proofers not to type things that "could be confusing" because they'll either start adding brackets around things that aren't in the image, or start leaving [**notes] all over the place. I'd rather they just remember that the formatter can look at the page image too. (I'm thinking of this discussion.) Laurawisewell 01:26, 8 December 2006 (PST)
- To my mind a mere assertion of disapproval carries no persuasive weight, unless from a PTB. Even PsTB generally provide some rationale for their pronouncements. As for my example, I already stated it needed improvement. Why don't you stop sniping and come up with something positive? What makes you think that proofers will start adding braces (despite a clear directive to the contrary given below the examples) simply because of a comment to an example? Change the wording of the comment. Change the example. Change the guidelines. Make them better. Dcwilson 02:20, 8 December 2006 (PST)
- You know very well that "like" can mean "am in favour of". As for your example, I would proof it as dy/dx / dz/dy. I don't think we should tell proofers not to type things that "could be confusing" because they'll either start adding brackets around things that aren't in the image, or start leaving [**notes] all over the place. I'd rather they just remember that the formatter can look at the page image too. (I'm thinking of this discussion.) Laurawisewell 01:26, 8 December 2006 (PST)
- Are guidelines about likes and dislikes? The previous guidelines weren't explicit about how to treat fractions, nor was practice consistent with the standard proofing guidelines. Removing the slashes was one possibility to get a simple rule that could be applied universally, but met with almost universal revulsion. So now I've tried to make explicit what is expected. Using a solidus is to some extent discretionary (especially when a fractional expression is non-trivial), so we still don't have a watertight guideline. The new example (of where space would be preferable to a solidus in terms of clarity) could no doubt be improved. Dcwilson 21:50, 7 December 2006 (PST)
