On 10-Aug-06 Steve Izma wrote:
From: Keith Marshall <address@hidden>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:28:29 +0100
I won't! If I write a numeric range, such as `200-400',
I *don't* want a line break to occur within it.
Well, I'll disagree. I can't find any reference to this in either
"Words into Type" or the "Chicago Guide ...", but when setting
indexes on short lines (e.g., two columns on book page, which
gives you about 10 to 12 picas, usually indented), any place
where you can get a line break is very important. By the way,
most style guides recommend using an en dash here, which is
subject to the same .hcode and .cflag issues as a hyphen. So I'm
keen on the idea of having another .cflag code to increase our
options in such situations.
Even in the middle of a regular text block, I don't think anyone
is going to confuse a range of numbers broken at the end of a
line with a hyphenated long number, which essentially is never
needed.
Yes, that does make something of a case for it, and indeed it
does occur. But even so I think it can be avoided in most cases.
Fr example, I just checked in the index of a book "Multivariate
Analysis" (Mardia, Kent & Bibby, Academic Press 1979).
In one entry I see:
seemingly unrelated regressions, 203-
5, 211
and in another:
simultaneous confidence intervals,
144-5
(the interword gaps in the book being relatively wider than
shown in the second example).
Both cases could have been improved in appearance by not filling
the lines:
seemingly unrelated regressions,
203-5, 211
simultaneous confidence intervals,
144-5
especially since some index entries are short lines anyway,
leading to a ragged-right effect overall -- e.g. (and I've
chosen a series which mixes the effects):
canonical correlation analysis, 5, 281-
99
contingency table, 290-3, 299
discriminant analysis, 320, 230
prediction, 289-90
ridge technique, 298
score, 289-90
which I reckon would look better if both the range-break
and the filling were turned off, giving
canonical correlation analysis, 5,
281-99
contingency table, 290-3, 299
discriminant analysis, 320, 230
prediction, 289-90
ridge technique, 298
score, 289-90
What opinions do others have?
Best wishes to all,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 10-Aug-06 Time: 17:24:32
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff