I agree in that typography is important. But there are some differences
from language to language.
One common problem is that the keyboard in fact does not have the double
quotation mark. The Shift 2 key combination is (in Norwegian at least)
the symbol for inches and nothing else. 50" TV.
If you use the " in Writer, it becomes « in the start of the quotation
and » in the end of it. If I want to write the inch symbol I have to
undo the printing (Ctrl Z).
Another common problem is that two spaces after full stop is boring in
HTML coding. If I use more than one space somewhere in the text is
printed as a single space. To get double spaces I have to add " ":
<p>Period. Full stop</p>. Therefore, I think, you hardly find a
web side using double spacing in a text.
More than one line (gap) between paragraphs is easier.
You prefer Writer. So do I and the local printing works we are using.
And yes, there is a difference writing e-mails and books.
And I agree with you in that this list is fantastic. I am not qualified
to say anything about the quality of English used here, but the helpers
who is proofreading my documents found lots of errors in my English.
Some misunderstandings, some grammatical errors, misprints, and other
errors. better ways to say it. (The lover part -> the lower part or
count -> count). And of course often better wordings.
Den 06.12.2015 15:51, Tom Davies skreiv:
In emails i tend to use double-quotes, ", when i am quoting someone or
something and i use single-quotes, ', for sarcasm or when reality is
radically different or even opposite to theory or common belief.
For example, when i say something 'should' work i usually mean that it
probably will work but that it wouldn't be a huge surprise if it
doesn't. Sometimes i mean that we often get told that it does work
but that many of us either struggle with it or find that it doesn't
work - when i mean this i usually explain what i really mean.
I hadn't thought about how other people use them. Mostly i find that
people don't follow any rules and even mix and match within even a
single document they wrote. I've even seen people use single quotes
at the start of a quote and end it with a double quote, and vice-versa
- again within a single document.
I really like the Norwegians use of << but i find those sorts of marks
quite bulky and potentially confusing as possibly being a bit of
coding - although context quickly solves that :)
I agree with Anne-ology about double-spaces after a full-stop making
it easier to skim-read. I have a feeling it should be only a little
more than a single space, even a space and a half-space might be too
much, but it's difficult to get that sort of finesse these days. A
single space feels wrong to me. So i use a double-space because it's
the easiest way to get as comfortable a layout as i reasonably can.
A lot of writing i've seen outside of this mailing list uses single
spaces or even no spaces at all after full-stops and that sort of
thing often results in commas having more emphasis than full-stops,
especially when people use double-spaces after commas or when "full
justify" messes up spacing.
There is so much confusion about all this that i've seen a lot of
people out there starting a new paragraph for every sentence. Some
people nowadays seem to do that even when the sentences follow on from
each other and don't add anything new. Perhaps it's people thinking
in bullet-points but then getting a bit carried away.
Personally i have even started using double or triple gaps between
paragraphs that are about a totally different topic. On the rare
occasion i do in-line replies (rather than top-posting) i try to
create an extra gap between my response and the bit i am responding
too. Emails tend to get so mangled that it's sometimes difficult to
figure out who said what. Hopefully you can see examples of my
double-gaps between the section about single and double quotes and the
section where i agree with Anne-ology about double-spaces after
full-stops, then again before the beginning of this paragraph.
With the prevalence of Microsoft Word, standards seem to have
plummeted. Now that almost anyone can produced printed documents the
expertise, knowledge and skills of dedicated typists and typesetters
has been lost or ignored or thrown out. For a time various companies
tried to enforce "in-house styles" or branding guidelines. Word often
seems to make that difficult even if companies take the time and
trouble to make proper templates and set-up their own styles.
One of the many reasons i prefer Writer is because the resulting
documents look much more consistent and more professional than the
results i have seen from people using Word. It takes much less effort
to look good - and it's so much easier to have an "in-house style".
I think the old rules that don't work so well with modern computer
systems are too out-dated. Newer rules seem clumsy or less "well
thought out" or difficult to implement. I think it's time for us to
find new rules that do work for us. In doing so i think it's well
worth noticing what the old rules were trying to do and what problems
they were trying to overcome. That might help us figure out how to
improve our own personal rules and styles, where to stick with current
fashions and where it might be better to start introducing our own
personal styles or flair.
Few people these days follow the rules, even rules they themselves
set, so why should we? I think old rules and copying ideas from each
other can help us develop new ways. Some wont work at first but some
might help us make documents that are easier to read and that look
Everyone on this mailing list seems to 'naturally' have a good style.
MUCH better than i have seen out there in the business world and in
charities in England. The standard of English is much higher here
too, especially from people who seem to think they are not much good
at writing English. Sometimes odd little mistakes or typos make
things interesting and "give food for thought" but always they are
better than much of what i hear from English people outside of this
Regards to all from
On 6 December 2015 at 13:20, Kolbjørn Stuestøl <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I have uploaded "version 2" of the LibreLogo tutorial.
Thanks to Bran Barker and anne-ology for proofreading and others for
I have learned a lot of typography and some English. :-)
To unsubscribe e-mail to: email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
- Re: [libreoffice-users] LibreLogo tutorial (continued)
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy