[scribus] Quotes -- or, about typographical conventions
mehor at gmx.com
Mon Aug 8 10:00:54 UTC 2011
On 08.08.2011 09:00, S C ribus wrote:
> The thread about "proper" typography reminds me of some discussions about spelling, food etiquette or pronunciation.
> What is acceptable and considered OK by the majority is OK for me. Typography. like the rest of the language is subject to change over time, dictated by the whole body of speakers and users of the language. We do not use the language the same way as in the 18th or 19th Century, and only dead languages do not change.
True, but not always for better. An example: use of titling figures in
running text. Though in his Elements of Typographic Style, Robert
Bringhurst said: "By all means, break the rules, and break them
beautifully, deliberately and well" (The Elements of Typographic Style,
3rd ed., p. 10), breaking some rules is still (rightfully, I'd say)
considered a serious error. For titling figures he said: "However common
it may be, the use of titling figures in running text is illiterate: is
spurns the truth of letters." (Ibid, p. 48) A lot of people typeset
their documents today "by feeling", without any knowledge of even basics
of typography, so breaking the rules for them is common practice,
because they don't even know there are any rules.
As for quotes, John hasn't answered my question: aren't straight
quotation marks considered an error in english? I've witnessed a lot of
typographical discussions among professional book designers and
typesetters, but I've never seen a single one of them who's been using
straight quotes. So, I'm curious, why would John choose them over the
common curly quotes?
> Specifically, I understand that some people may want their documents to stick to "historic" typography rules and the need for Scribus to support such rules.
> Nonetheless I feel there is no place on this list for typography talibans, as it primarily deals with the software we use - and not the do's and don'ts of typography.
> Cedric Sagne
Cedric, are you're trying to change Godwin's Law  or you're simply
confirming it, with a slight terminology change? ;-) I, for one,
consider your last sentence an absurd, if we do take the proper meaning
of words into consideration: you do know that "talibans" means
"students", do you? :-)
More information about the scribus