GNU bug report logs - #40011
Remove unnecessary abbreviations from documentation

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 40011 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 40011 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#40011: Remove unnecessary abbreviations from documentation
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 17:39:09 +0300

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
> Cc: 40011 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  rms <at> gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 08:05:34 +0200
> 
> > Let's not be too extreme: I'm against removing "e.g." and "i.e." at
> > the least.
> 
> There are many such instances to get right, so maybe we can find a way
> forward which avoids changing all of them.
> 
> How about adding something along the lines of the attached patch, and
> leave it at that?  Would that be acceptable?
>  [...]
> +@item
> +Avoid abbreviations like ``e.g.'' (for ``for example''), ``i.e.'' (for
> +``that is''), ``no.'' (for ``number''), ``c.f.'' (for ``in contrast
> +to'') and ``w.r.t.'' (for ``with respect to'').  It is almost always
> +both more clear and easier to read the expanded version.

It would be fine with me, but there are a lot of pedants out there,
and I'd rather we avoided bug reports telling us "why don't you do as
you say and remove all the e.g.'s from your own manuals."  I'd like to
avoid the endless disputes such bug reports tend to cause.

So could you make the above even less definitive, either by saying

  "Try to avoid using abbreviations like ... as much as possible."

Maybe even add a footnote saying something like "We do occasionally
use these, but try not to overdo it.".

OK?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.