atw: Re: austechwriter Digest V6 #250
- From: Graeme Foster <gfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:21:27 +1100
Hi Howard
Yes - minor issue. But - preceding and following surely do the job?
G
On 07/10/2008, at 5:04 PM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager wrote:
austechwriter Digest Mon, 06 Oct 2008 Volume: 06 Issue: 250
In This Issue:
Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Resist! They want to take away my malisons
Re: Resist! They want to take away my malisons [SEC=UNCLASSI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
From: Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:34:13 +1100
I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in documents
to
refer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turn
out
not to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the page
after
you repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may object
to
'the figure below'.
However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and
'below'
are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book or writing'
and
'at a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes from the
Macquarie
Concise Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to follow this
convention, even when you know that the text or figure is actually
on a
different page.
But I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Howard
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:48:07 +1100
From: Janice Gelb <Janice.Gelb@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in
documents to
refer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turn
out
not to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the page
after you repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may
object to 'the figure below'.
However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and
'below' are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book or
writing' and 'at a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes
from
the Macquarie Concise Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to
follow this convention, even when you know that the text or figure is
actually on a different page.
But I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Our style guide recommends the following:
When using cross-references, do not use the words ?above?
and ?below? to refer to items that are literally above
and below. Remember that something that appears ?above?
in today?s draft could be ?on the previous page? in
tomorrow?s draft, and these terms are even more problematic
in online documents. Using the words ?next,? ?following,?
?previous,? and ?preceding? is acceptable if the item
referenced is nearby.
-- Janice
***********************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with
janice.gelb@xxxxxxx | this message is the return address
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:48:28 +1100
From: "Matthew da Silva" <mdasilva@xxxxxxxxxxx>
What page they're on shouldn't be relevant. To please all stakeholders
it would be neat to insert a configurable marker.
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 7 October 2008 2:34 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in documents
to
refer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turn
out
not to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the page
after you repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may
object to 'the figure below'.
However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and
'below' are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book or
writing' and 'at a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes from
the Macquarie Concise Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to
follow this convention, even when you know that the text or figure is
actually on a different page.
But I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Howard
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:50:50 +1100
From: "Bob Trussler" <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hiowrad,
I reckon that your comments 'below' are appropriate.
Some people may just have to learn the existing usage of these
terms. Any
new attempts to make it simpler could lead to meltdown.
We could apply a cross reference to the page if the previous
reference is
many pages before, but if the reference is to something 'above'
that is in
the same block of text and we could reasonably expect the reader to
have
read it, then 'above' is best.
Bob T
2008/10/7 <Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in
documents to
refer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turn
out not
to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the page
after you
repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may object to
'the
figure below'.
However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and
'below'
are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book or writing'
and 'at
a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes from the Macquarie
Concise
Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to follow this
convention, even
when you know that the text or figure is actually on a different
page.
But I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Howard
--
Bob Trussler
Phone 0418 661 462
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
From: Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:11:04 +1100
I forgot to mention that Word's cross-referencing feature allows you
to
create a cross-reference in a form that displays as 'above' or 'below'
when the item is actually on the same page but displays 'on page xx'
otherwise (where xx is, of course, correctly set to an actual page
number). So it seems as if Microsoft goes along with the 'literal
interpretation' school of thought - or at least allows for it.
Another possibly relevant observation is that it seems to be common
now
for people to say 'all of the above' (i.e. all the options just
mentioned)
even when speaking - even though it's probably a somewhat frivolous
usage.
Janice, I assume you're referring to Read Me First!, are you? I had a
quick look in it, but couldn't find the text I thought I'd seen
there -
it's not under Cross-References, is it? I think the piece you quote is
what I'd been looking for. (I also tried the index, under both
'above' and
'below', but no.)
Howard
"Bob Trussler" <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
07/10/2008 02:51 PM
Please respond to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
atw: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hiowrad,
I reckon that your comments 'below' are appropriate.
Some people may just have to learn the existing usage of these
terms. Any
new attempts to make it simpler could lead to meltdown.
We could apply a cross reference to the page if the previous
reference is
many pages before, but if the reference is to something 'above'
that is
in the same block of text and we could reasonably expect the reader to
have read it, then 'above' is best.
Bob T
2008/10/7 <Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in documents
to
refer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turn
out
not to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the page
after
you repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may object
to
'the figure below'.
However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and
'below'
are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book or writing'
and
'at a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes from the
Macquarie
Concise Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to follow this
convention, even when you know that the text or figure is actually
on a
different page.
But I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Howard
--
Bob Trussler
Phone 0418 661 462[attachment "C.DTF" deleted by Howard
Silcock/People/DFATL]
------------------------------
From: peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 12:14:13 +0800
Interesting that this overlaps (a little) with the earlier longer
rave about XML, because knowing what XML can and does do and the way
it does it helps you understand why different wording might need to
be used.
In a content-reuse environment (such as DITA mapping etc) you are
discouraged from using these and similar "positional" references,
because the paragraph you are writing may well be hauled out and
included (conreffed) into another document, perhaps a document
without the "above" material at all, or even, perhaps with "above"
stuff below.
Cross referencing of course can help if the stuff referred to +does+
get included, and you can use something like a hypertext link which
doesn't have "positionality"!
(There! Got one in for the functionality freaks!) (And two
exclamation marks for those who declare them anathema and deem them
autobiographical punctuation).
Problem is, do you have conditional cross-referencing ? etc...
Sometimes I have doubts about some of the things involved in context
free re-use ...
Anyone finding neat solutions ?
--Peter M
---- Original Message ----
From: Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: atw: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:34:13 +1100
I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in documents
to
refer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turn
out
not to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the page
after
you repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may object
to
'the figure below'.
However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and
'below'
are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book or writing'
and
'at a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes from the
Macquarie
Concise Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to follow this
convention, even when you know that the text or figure is actually
on a
different page.
But I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Howard
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:33:43 +1100
From: "Michael Lewis" <Michael.Lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Peter M raises the spectre of content re-use. At the ASTC (NSW)
conference last year, I gave what I thought (and many of the
audience believed) were very good grammatical reasons for treating
content re-use as more of a problem that a solution.
Michael Lewis
Department of Linguistics,
Macquarie University
------------------------------
From: Janet Taylor <jtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:37:29 +1000
When you're creating online documents, the above is sometimes in a
different
topic and therefore not anywhere before what you are reading.
The SMEs who were my original authors had a lot of trouble with this
concept. I therefore banned the use of above and below [and preceding,
following (unless immediately following) and their relatives].
After a few
years, everyone seemed to remember not to use these words and now
uses the
topic name when referring to a different topic (and sometimes it's
even
x-referenced!) and they reconstruct their writing to avoid it at other
times. (I will allow "as just described" in an emergency.) The use
of the
topic name has been extremely handy when the text has been re-
organised. The
name of an illustration is used instead of "above diagram" as in some
incarnations of a document, the illustration might not be present.
That has
its problems also, but it's taken care of with Word styles.
The first thing I suggest when someone is converting documentation
to online
presentation: search for all the aboves and belows and replace them.
Janet
-----Original Message-----
From: Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 October 2008 3:11 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
I forgot to mention that Word's cross-referencing feature allows you
to
create a cross-reference in a form that displays as 'above' or
'below' when
the item is actually on the same page but displays 'on page xx'
otherwise
(where xx is, of course, correctly set to an actual page number). So
it
seems as if Microsoft goes along with the 'literal interpretation'
school of
thought - or at least allows for it.
Another possibly relevant observation is that it seems to be common
now for
people to say 'all of the above' (i.e. all the options just
mentioned) even
when speaking - even though it's probably a somewhat frivolous usage.
Janice, I assume you're referring to Read Me First!, are you? I had
a quick
look in it, but couldn't find the text I thought I'd seen there -
it's not
under Cross-References, is it? I think the piece you quote is what
I'd been
looking for. (I also tried the index, under both 'above' and
'below', but
no.)
Howard
"Bob Trussler" <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
07/10/2008 02:51 PM
Please respond to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
atw: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hiowrad,
I reckon that your comments 'below' are appropriate.
Some people may just have to learn the existing usage of these
terms. Any
new attempts to make it simpler could lead to meltdown.
We could apply a cross reference to the page if the previous
reference is
many pages before, but if the reference is to something 'above'
that is in
the same block of text and we could reasonably expect the reader to
have
read it, then 'above' is best.
Bob T
2008/10/7 < <mailto:Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx> Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in documents
to
refer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turn
out not
to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the page
after you
repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may object to
'the
figure below'.
However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and
'below'
are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book or writing'
and 'at
a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes from the Macquarie
Concise
Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to follow this
convention, even
when you know that the text or figure is actually on a different page.
But I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Howard
--
Bob Trussler
Phone 0418 661 462[attachment "C.DTF" deleted by Howard
Silcock/People/DFATL]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:43:20 +1100
From: Janice Gelb <Janice.Gelb@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Janice, I assume you're referring to Read Me First!, are you? I had a
quick look in it, but couldn't find the text I thought I'd seen
there -
it's not under Cross-References, is it? I think the piece you quote
is
what I'd been looking for. (I also tried the index, under both
'above'
and 'below', but no.)
I'm afraid I'm working from home today and don't have
RMF here, so I was quoting from our in-house style guide
on which RMF is based. In our ESG, the text I quoted is
in the chapter on "Writing Style" under "Use Cross-References
to Address Anticipated Questions." Also, "above" and "below"
should be in RMF in the General Term Usage appendix table.
Apparently, we refined our index in subsequent releases of
our internal guide because the index has a listing for
"'above', avoiding use of'" Sorry to hear that RMF doesn't
have those listings, but I think we didn't index the term
usage table in earlier editions.
-- Janice
***********************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with
janice.gelb@xxxxxxx | this message is the return address
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:46:36 +1100
From: Janice Gelb <Janice.Gelb@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I forgot to mention that Word's cross-referencing feature allows
you to
create a cross-reference in a form that displays as 'above' or
'below'
when the item is actually on the same page but displays 'on page xx'
otherwise (where xx is, of course, correctly set to an actual page
number). So it seems as if Microsoft goes along with the 'literal
interpretation' school of thought - or at least allows for it.
We now recommend that if a table or figure is within
a paragraph of a reference, that writers say "the
previous table" or "the following figure" rather than
providing a live cross-reference. Not only does this
avoid the awkward "on page XX" when the reference is
on the same page, but for online presentation it also
prevents having a distracting live cross-reference
that will travel about 1/16 of an inch if clicked
in the browser window :->
-- Janice
***********************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with
janice.gelb@xxxxxxx | this message is the return address
------------------------------
From: "Warren Lewington" <wjlewington@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:50:34 +1100
"All of the Above" was or is meant to be a legal term, which has
transferred
into common usage. Nothing wrong with using it to refer to things
above I
guess.
Personally, I try and avoid this kind of vague reference, including
above
and below etc. Sometimes I will say "in the table below" if the
table is
right below the paragraph, and I find it best to leave that quote to
the
last sentence - for flow. And I make damn sure the table and that
paragraph
are never separated by a page.
My preference when the information is separated by pages or multiple
paragraphs, is to refer to the exact section, table, figure or in some
cases, repeat small amounts of immediately relevant reference
information,
which is then provided with the full cross-reference for greater
reader
detail.
Regards;
Warren
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 7 October 2008 15:11
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
------------------------------
From: "Geoffrey Marnell" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:55:59 +1100
Michael,
I am sure that many on this this would be interested in reading your
thoughts on this topic. Was your presentation in the form of a paper
(that
is, as a structured argument rather than a set of abbreviated
slides) and
readily accessible?
Cheers
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: (+61 3) 9596 3456
F: (+61 3) 9596 3625
W: http://www.abelard.com.au
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Lewis
Sent: Tuesday, 7 October 2008 3:34 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Peter M raises the spectre of content re-use. At the ASTC (NSW)
conference
last year, I gave what I thought (and many of the audience believed)
were
very good grammatical reasons for treating content re-use as more of a
problem that a solution.
Michael Lewis
Department of Linguistics,
Macquarie University
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-
request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION
modes)
go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
------------------------------
From: peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Resist! They want to take away my malisons
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 13:46:44 +0800
A malison on these agrestic, niddering and olid knaves !
http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1552/
All those great scrabble words -- what are they trying to do to us?
--Peter M
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Resist! They want to take away my malisons
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
From: Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:01:10 +1100
Peter, thanks for bringing these words to our attention!
Not sure about Scrabble - most of them are pretty long - but they're
*good* words.
Howard
peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
07/10/2008 04:47 PM
Please respond to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
atw: Resist! They want to take away my malisons [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
A malison on these agrestic, niddering and olid knaves !
http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1552/
All those great scrabble words -- what are they trying to do to us?
--Peter M
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-
request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION
modes) go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
------------------------------
End of austechwriter Digest V6 #250
***********************************
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go
to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
Other related posts:
- » atw: Re: austechwriter Digest V6 #250
austechwriter Digest Mon, 06 Oct 2008 Volume: 06 Issue: 250
In This Issue:
Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Resist! They want to take away my malisons
Re: Resist! They want to take away my malisons [SEC=UNCLASSI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
From: Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:34:13 +1100
I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in documents
to
refer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turn
out
not to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the page
after
you repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may object
to
'the figure below'.However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and 'below' are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book or writing' and 'at a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes from the Macquarie
Concise Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to follow thisconvention, even when you know that the text or figure is actually on a
different page. But I'd be interested to hear what others think. Howard ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:48:07 +1100 From: Janice Gelb <Janice.Gelb@xxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in documents to refer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turn outnot to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the page after you repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may object to 'the figure below'. However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and 'below' are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book orwriting' and 'at a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes fromthe Macquarie Concise Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to follow this convention, even when you know that the text or figure is actually on a different page. But I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Our style guide recommends the following: When using cross-references, do not use the words ?above? and ?below? to refer to items that are literally above and below. Remember that something that appears ?above? in today?s draft could be ?on the previous page? in tomorrow?s draft, and these terms are even more problematic in online documents. Using the words ?next,? ?following,? ?previous,? and ?preceding? is acceptable if the item referenced is nearby. -- Janice *********************************************************** Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with janice.gelb@xxxxxxx | this message is the return address ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:48:28 +1100 From: "Matthew da Silva" <mdasilva@xxxxxxxxxxx> What page they're on shouldn't be relevant. To please all stakeholders it would be neat to insert a configurable marker. From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, 7 October 2008 2:34 PM To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: atw: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in documents to refer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turn out
not to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the page after you repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may object to 'the figure below'. However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and 'below' are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book or writing' and 'at a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes from the Macquarie Concise Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to follow this convention, even when you know that the text or figure is actually on a different page. But I'd be interested to hear what others think. Howard ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:50:50 +1100 From: "Bob Trussler" <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hiowrad, I reckon that your comments 'below' are appropriate.Some people may just have to learn the existing usage of these terms. Any
new attempts to make it simpler could lead to meltdown.We could apply a cross reference to the page if the previous reference is many pages before, but if the reference is to something 'above' that is in the same block of text and we could reasonably expect the reader to have
read it, then 'above' is best. Bob T 2008/10/7 <Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in documents to refer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turn out not to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the page after you repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may object to 'thefigure below'.However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and 'below' are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book or writing' and 'at a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes from the Macquarie Concise Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to follow this convention, even when you know that the text or figure is actually on a different page.But I'd be interested to hear what others think. Howard
-- Bob Trussler Phone 0418 661 462 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:11:04 +1100I forgot to mention that Word's cross-referencing feature allows you to
create a cross-reference in a form that displays as 'above' or 'below' when the item is actually on the same page but displays 'on page xx' otherwise (where xx is, of course, correctly set to an actual page number). So it seems as if Microsoft goes along with the 'literal interpretation' school of thought - or at least allows for it.Another possibly relevant observation is that it seems to be common now for people to say 'all of the above' (i.e. all the options just mentioned) even when speaking - even though it's probably a somewhat frivolous usage.
Janice, I assume you're referring to Read Me First!, are you? I had aquick look in it, but couldn't find the text I thought I'd seen there -
it's not under Cross-References, is it? I think the piece you quote iswhat I'd been looking for. (I also tried the index, under both 'above' and
'below', but no.) Howard "Bob Trussler" <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx> Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 07/10/2008 02:51 PM Please respond to austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx cc Subject atw: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hiowrad, I reckon that your comments 'below' are appropriate.Some people may just have to learn the existing usage of these terms. Any
new attempts to make it simpler could lead to meltdown.We could apply a cross reference to the page if the previous reference is many pages before, but if the reference is to something 'above' that is
in the same block of text and we could reasonably expect the reader to have read it, then 'above' is best. Bob T 2008/10/7 <Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx>I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in documents to refer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turn out not to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the page after you repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may object to
'the figure below'.However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and 'below' are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book or writing' and 'at a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes from the Macquarie
Concise Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to follow thisconvention, even when you know that the text or figure is actually on a
different page. But I'd be interested to hear what others think. Howard -- Bob Trussler Phone 0418 661 462[attachment "C.DTF" deleted by Howard Silcock/People/DFATL] ------------------------------ From: peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 12:14:13 +0800 Interesting that this overlaps (a little) with the earlier longer rave about XML, because knowing what XML can and does do and the way it does it helps you understand why different wording might need to be used. In a content-reuse environment (such as DITA mapping etc) you are discouraged from using these and similar "positional" references, because the paragraph you are writing may well be hauled out and included (conreffed) into another document, perhaps a document without the "above" material at all, or even, perhaps with "above" stuff below. Cross referencing of course can help if the stuff referred to +does+ get included, and you can use something like a hypertext link which doesn't have "positionality"! (There! Got one in for the functionality freaks!) (And two exclamation marks for those who declare them anathema and deem them autobiographical punctuation). Problem is, do you have conditional cross-referencing ? etc... Sometimes I have doubts about some of the things involved in context free re-use ... Anyone finding neat solutions ? --Peter M
---- Original Message ---- From: Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: atw: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:34:13 +1100I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in documentstorefer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turnoutnot to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the pageafteryou repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may objectto'the figure below'. However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and'below'are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book or writing'and'at a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes from theMacquarieConcise Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to follow this convention, even when you know that the text or figure is actuallyon adifferent page. But I'd be interested to hear what others think. Howard
------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:33:43 +1100 From: "Michael Lewis" <Michael.Lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]Peter M raises the spectre of content re-use. At the ASTC (NSW) conference last year, I gave what I thought (and many of the audience believed) were very good grammatical reasons for treating content re-use as more of a problem that a solution.
Michael Lewis Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University ------------------------------ From: Janet Taylor <jtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:37:29 +1000When you're creating online documents, the above is sometimes in a different
topic and therefore not anywhere before what you are reading. The SMEs who were my original authors had a lot of trouble with this concept. I therefore banned the use of above and below [and preceding,following (unless immediately following) and their relatives]. After a few years, everyone seemed to remember not to use these words and now uses the topic name when referring to a different topic (and sometimes it's even
x-referenced!) and they reconstruct their writing to avoid it at othertimes. (I will allow "as just described" in an emergency.) The use of the topic name has been extremely handy when the text has been re- organised. The
name of an illustration is used instead of "above diagram" as in someincarnations of a document, the illustration might not be present. That has
its problems also, but it's taken care of with Word styles.The first thing I suggest when someone is converting documentation to online
presentation: search for all the aboves and belows and replace them. Janet -----Original Message----- From: Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, 7 October 2008 3:11 PM To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: atw: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]I forgot to mention that Word's cross-referencing feature allows you to create a cross-reference in a form that displays as 'above' or 'below' when the item is actually on the same page but displays 'on page xx' otherwise (where xx is, of course, correctly set to an actual page number). So it seems as if Microsoft goes along with the 'literal interpretation' school of
thought - or at least allows for it.Another possibly relevant observation is that it seems to be common now for people to say 'all of the above' (i.e. all the options just mentioned) even
when speaking - even though it's probably a somewhat frivolous usage.Janice, I assume you're referring to Read Me First!, are you? I had a quick look in it, but couldn't find the text I thought I'd seen there - it's not under Cross-References, is it? I think the piece you quote is what I'd been looking for. (I also tried the index, under both 'above' and 'below', but
no.)
Howard
"Bob Trussler" <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
07/10/2008 02:51 PM
Please respond to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
atw: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hiowrad,
I reckon that your comments 'below' are appropriate.
Some people may just have to learn the existing usage of these
terms. Any
new attempts to make it simpler could lead to meltdown.We could apply a cross reference to the page if the previous reference is many pages before, but if the reference is to something 'above' that is in the same block of text and we could reasonably expect the reader to have
read it, then 'above' is best. Bob T2008/10/7 < <mailto:Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx> Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx >
I've heard that some people object to using 'the above' in documents to refer to whatever's just been said, on the grounds that it may turn out not to be literally 'above' the current text's position on the page after you repaginate the document. Similarly, I suppose, people may object to 'the
figure below'.However, there does also seem to be a convention that 'above' and 'below' are used to mean 'before in order, especially in a book or writing' and 'at a later point on the page or in writing' (quotes from the Macquarie Concise Dictionary) and I generally assume it's OK to follow this convention, even
when you know that the text or figure is actually on a different page. But I'd be interested to hear what others think. Howard -- Bob Trussler Phone 0418 661 462[attachment "C.DTF" deleted by Howard Silcock/People/DFATL] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:43:20 +1100 From: Janice Gelb <Janice.Gelb@xxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Janice, I assume you're referring to Read Me First!, are you? I had aquick look in it, but couldn't find the text I thought I'd seen there - it's not under Cross-References, is it? I think the piece you quote is what I'd been looking for. (I also tried the index, under both 'above'and 'below', but no.)
I'm afraid I'm working from home today and don't have RMF here, so I was quoting from our in-house style guide on which RMF is based. In our ESG, the text I quoted is in the chapter on "Writing Style" under "Use Cross-References to Address Anticipated Questions." Also, "above" and "below" should be in RMF in the General Term Usage appendix table. Apparently, we refined our index in subsequent releases of our internal guide because the index has a listing for "'above', avoiding use of'" Sorry to hear that RMF doesn't have those listings, but I think we didn't index the term usage table in earlier editions. -- Janice *********************************************************** Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with janice.gelb@xxxxxxx | this message is the return address ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:46:36 +1100 From: Janice Gelb <Janice.Gelb@xxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I forgot to mention that Word's cross-referencing feature allows you to create a cross-reference in a form that displays as 'above' or 'below'when the item is actually on the same page but displays 'on page xx' otherwise (where xx is, of course, correctly set to an actual page number). So it seems as if Microsoft goes along with the 'literal interpretation' school of thought - or at least allows for it.
We now recommend that if a table or figure is within a paragraph of a reference, that writers say "the previous table" or "the following figure" rather than providing a live cross-reference. Not only does this avoid the awkward "on page XX" when the reference is on the same page, but for online presentation it also prevents having a distracting live cross-reference that will travel about 1/16 of an inch if clicked in the browser window :-> -- Janice *********************************************************** Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with janice.gelb@xxxxxxx | this message is the return address ------------------------------ From: "Warren Lewington" <wjlewington@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:50:34 +1100"All of the Above" was or is meant to be a legal term, which has transferred into common usage. Nothing wrong with using it to refer to things above I
guess.Personally, I try and avoid this kind of vague reference, including above and below etc. Sometimes I will say "in the table below" if the table is right below the paragraph, and I find it best to leave that quote to the last sentence - for flow. And I make damn sure the table and that paragraph
are never separated by a page. My preference when the information is separated by pages or multiple paragraphs, is to refer to the exact section, table, figure or in somecases, repeat small amounts of immediately relevant reference information, which is then provided with the full cross-reference for greater reader
detail. Regards; Warren From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, 7 October 2008 15:11 To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: atw: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] ------------------------------ From: "Geoffrey Marnell" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:55:59 +1100 Michael, I am sure that many on this this would be interested in reading yourthoughts on this topic. Was your presentation in the form of a paper (that is, as a structured argument rather than a set of abbreviated slides) and
readily accessible? Cheers Geoffrey Marnell Principal Consultant Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd T: (+61 3) 9596 3456 F: (+61 3) 9596 3625 W: http://www.abelard.com.au -----Original Message----- From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Lewis Sent: Tuesday, 7 October 2008 3:34 PM To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: atw: Re: Above and below [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]Peter M raises the spectre of content re-use. At the ASTC (NSW) conference last year, I gave what I thought (and many of the audience believed) were
very good grammatical reasons for treating content re-use as more of a problem that a solution. Michael Lewis Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University ************************************************** To view the austechwriter archives, go to www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriterTo unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter- request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes)
go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter To contact the list administrator, send a message to austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ************************************************** ------------------------------ From: peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Resist! They want to take away my malisons Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 13:46:44 +0800 A malison on these agrestic, niddering and olid knaves ! http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1552/ All those great scrabble words -- what are they trying to do to us? --Peter M ------------------------------Subject: Re: Resist! They want to take away my malisons [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
From: Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:01:10 +1100 Peter, thanks for bringing these words to our attention! Not sure about Scrabble - most of them are pretty long - but they're *good* words. Howard peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 07/10/2008 04:47 PM Please respond to austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx cc Subject atw: Resist! They want to take away my malisons [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] A malison on these agrestic, niddering and olid knaves ! http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1552/ All those great scrabble words -- what are they trying to do to us? --Peter M ************************************************** To view the austechwriter archives, go to www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriterTo unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter- request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes). To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter To contact the list administrator, send a message to austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ************************************************** ------------------------------ End of austechwriter Digest V6 #250 ***********************************