| Title: | Online Bookbuilding |
| Notice: | This conference is write-locked: see note 1.3. |
| Moderator: | VAXUUM::UTT |
| Created: | Fri Aug 12 1988 |
| Last Modified: | Mon Jul 15 1991 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 440 |
| Total number of notes: | 2134 |
During some recent interviews with Bookreader users, one interviewee
asked that "Contents" in the navigation window be changed to "Table
of Contents." (And, correspondingly, the pulldown menu item should
change to "Table of Contents.")
The change is trivial and could be part of the internal Writer's
Toolkit to be released around the end of this month.
So, the question is, would this be a desirable change?
Thanks,
Mary
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 413.1 | Just "Contents" | FAVAX::VERRILLI | Thu Mar 21 1991 17:34 | 5 | |
Here's one editor who says no. "Contents" is more direct; "Table of
Contents" is old-fashioned. Even the Chicago Manual of Style uses simply
"Contents."
John
| |||||
| 413.2 | Keep it simple | MARVIN::KNOWLES | Domimina nustio illumea | Fri Mar 22 1991 03:35 | 8 |
As an ex-editor, now writer, I strongly agree with John. As he says,
the Chicago Manual of Style uses plain `Contents', and so does the
nearest UK equivalent, Judith Butcher's Copy Editing. `Table of
Contents' reminds me of nineteenth century tomes, published by
self-congratulatory literati. We know it's a table - it looks
like one; just call it `Contents' (please, please, pretty please).
b
| |||||
| 413.3 | 'Contents' it is | VAXUUM::UTT | Mary Utt | Fri Mar 22 1991 08:10 | 6 |
Given the almost total lack of enthusiasm for the proposed change
(I got only one reply via MAIL) and the fact that it would introduce
an inconsistency in the documents on the CD (older ones would say
'Contents' and new ones would say 'Table of Contents') we decided
to keep things as they are. So, 'Contents' it is for twentieth-century
online tomes. :-)
| |||||
| 413.4 | A Word from Domus Pui | IJSAPL::KLERK | COHESION + FUSE = CONFUSION | Tue Apr 09 1991 11:59 | 13 |
Re. 2: Since tables look like tables, shall we omit the "Table 4-2" entries that accompany table structures. And "Figure" for figures and "Example" for Examples? Even the word Chapter is superfluous in many cases (both upper and lower CASE as well as middle CASE), :-) Theo | |||||