On 10-Aug-06 Steve Izma wrote:
>> From: Keith Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 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) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 10-Aug-06 Time: 17:24:32
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
