=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 5, no. 42 (29 October 2000) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2mk] Spelling query: "data set" [2mo] Specifying dollars [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q&A ----------------------------------------------------- ** [2mk] Spelling query: "data set" Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 From: Annette Kovite, akovite@jps.net Penny Williams wrote: > Does anyone know whether data set (in the context of a book > about modelling using spreadsheets) is one word or two. The > authors generally use two words in the text but one in the > spreadsheet snapshots. And does it matter which providing it's > consistent? I would use two words, but if the screenshots use one, which presumably means the user interface uses one, I would go with one word. As you said, it's more important to be consistent in this case. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2mo] Specifying dollars Date: Thurs, 26 Oct 2000 From: Anna Beth McCormack, mccormack@goulburn.net.au Is there any reason why the US dollar should differ from other countries' dollars in where the country indication is placed? A style instruction I've received says to use (e.g.) US$1 but $A1 and $NZ1. Is there any justification? I'd prefer the country before the $ in all cases, just for readability. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 26 Oct 2000 From: Rhana Pike, Rhana@ctc.usyd.edu.au CBE says that usual style is the country first but that the Australian government manual has the country after. I'd go for consistency and use country first in an international text. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 26 Oct 2000 From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz I don't know where CBE gets its misinformation from. The 5th (latest) edition of the AGPS Manual prescribes (in para 10.81) having the country before the dollar sign, and so does Write Edit Print, the NZ adaptation of the same work. E.g.: A$10 000 NZ$5000 US$25.90 [AGPS] NZ$5000 A$10 000 US$25.90 [Write Edit Print] ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 26 Oct 2000 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com Simon Cauchi wrote: > A$10 000 NZ$5000 US$25.90 [AGPS] > NZ$5000 A$10 000 US$25.90 [Write Edit Print] Do these documents really call for spaces in sums of money? At some point I was instructed not to make it easy for people to make changes, and told to use commas on cheques. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 26 Oct 2000 From: Andrea Day, aday2@vtown.com.au I had cause to look this up only last week, and just re-checked my Aust. Style Manual. Section 10.81 states: When a text contains, for example, sums of money expressed in Australian and other dollars, each currency should be differentiated by placing the appropriate letter or letters before the dollar sign in the following manner: A$10 000 NZ$5000 US$25.90 ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 26 Oct 2000 From: Rhana Pike, Rhana@ctc.usyd.edu.au Yes. This is in the Australian manual of 1994; CBE uses as a reference the Australian manual of 1988. I would guess that this is where Anna Beth's client got the style instruction, and I suggest that she could tell the client that it's outdated and to put the country first in all cases. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 From: Anna Beth McCormack, mccormack@goulburn.net.au Thank you Rhana, Simon and Andrea for the information and advice. Now I will certainly be arguing for countries before dollars in all cases. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 From: Iain Brown, iain.brown@ucl.ac.uk Picking up a point raised by David Ibbetson: >> A$10 000 NZ$5000 US$25.90 [AGPS] >> NZ$5000 A$10 000 US$25.90 [Write Edit Print] > > Do these documents really call for spaces in sums of money? At > some point I was instructed not to make it easy for people to > make changes, and told to use commas on cheques. In my mind there is a difference between writing cheques -- when one is employing means to prevent fraudulent (mis)/(ab)use -- and style in a printed work. The former is alterable, whereas the latter is, as I say to my students, "set in stone". ---[6] Just for fun -------------------------------------------- Units of measurement, no. 20 453.6 graham crackers = 1 pound cake +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Oxymorons, no. 9 Government organisation ---[8] Administration ------------------------------------------ EDline provides the opportunity for an online discussion of matters editorial and editorial business. To post to the mailing list via ListBot, use the following address: ee_edline@listbot.com For digest subscribers, please post your EDline messages to: bywater@zetnet.co.uk Topics might include areas such as Grammar, Spelling, American English or Punctuation. Messages should be pertinent to the basic premise of the list; they may be withheld, or redirected if more pertinent to one of the other mailing lists. The spelling and grammar of messages will *not* be corrected, but some editing of length may be undertaken. The sections of the EDline digest are as follows: [2] Q & A -- questions and answers [3] FYI -- items of general interest [4] Business matters -- items of a business nature [5] Bookmarks -- useful Web pages [6] Just for fun -- time for letting hair down! [7] Miscellaneous -- odds and sods * Administration All messages of a subscription or administrative nature should be directed to Iain Brown, at: iain.brown@ucl.ac.uk with "EDline ADMIN" in the subject line. * To subscribe to the automated version of EDline Send a blank email to: ee_edline-subscribe@listbot.com If you would prefer to read EDline as a weekly digest, send an e-mail to ElectricEds@bigfoot.com with "Subscribe [EDline digest]" as the subject line. * Homepage and back issues: Visit the Electric Editors at: < http://www.electriceditors.net/ > Archives of the EDline automated discussions can be found at: < http://ee_edline.listbot.com/ > --------- ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. ** Articles (c) 2000, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996, 1997, 2000 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2000, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 5.42 Next digest issue: 5 November 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=