Apologies for the intrusion.
I'd like to ask about a part of Ms Bradshaw's comment about shortforms and
contractions in website/URL names or paths. It is my understanding that
websites/URLs can include shortforms and contractions so long as the use
does not run afoul of the standing-alone rule. That is, it's not a
proscription of the use of shortforms or contractions in URLs, but an
application of the standing-alone rule and other rules.
For example, in LOVELETTERS.ORG, we would not use the shortform for LETTTER
because the word is (a) not standing alone in this usage, nor (b) does the
word LETTER begin the word.
In CHILDBEREAVEMENT.ORG we would not use the wordsign for CHILD because it
has to be standing alone. We would not use the contraction for BE because
it does not begin the word. We would not use the final-letter groupsign
for MENT because it is only used at the end of a word (though it can appear
with a trailing S). However, we would use the strong groupsign for ER
because we use it anywhere it occurs.
In BRAILLEDOCUMENTS.ORG we would not use the wordsign for BRAILLE because
-- while it can occur as part of a longer word, that longer word has to be
standing alone. We would not use the final-letter groupsign for MENT
because it is only used at the end of a word (though it can appear with a
trailing S). However, we would use the strong groupsign for ED because we
use it anywhere it occurs.
In THEATREROYAL.ORG we would use the strong contraction for THE. However, I
don't know if we would also use the strong groupsign ER, because it is not
to be used when it spans compound words (see `viceroyal` in the exceptions
listed in 10.4.1). That said, I have to admit that its use does not
trigger my ire either, but per the UEB rulebook it does seem to be wrong in
this case.
I am more than happy to be taught that any of my assessments are
incorrect, especially with a pointer to the rule or common-usage that helps
me understand my mistake(s).
Best,
_don
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Margaret Bradshaw <
margaret.bradshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Greetings
We’ve had a few websites recently which have caused us question.
I know that we don’t use shortforms in websites for obvious reasons and,
thus, we sometimes use contractions which look very “wrong” as a result.
(For example, we would use the ER sign in Loveletters.org)
When we have a series of words making up a website, do we ignore the way
the words would or would not be contracted outwith the web scenario – if
typing the website would not be hindered by “bad” contracting – or do we
respect the sorts of rules we would normally use in making contraction
decisions?
A couple of recent examples:
Theatreroyal.org
(Duxbury is translating this using the ER contraction. Whilst it looks
really wrong, it actually wouldn’t get in the way of someone using this
version as a reference for finding the site on the web.)
Note: UEB Rulebook 10.12.3 shows the example of
c:\brailledocuments\letters.txt with the ED uncontracted and looks
correct.
Childbereavement.org
(You would – of course – not use the BE contraction, but could you use the
ER contraction in “bereavement” in this instance?)
Thoughts?
Thanks in advance
Margaret
(Bradshaw)
Royal Blind see a community in which blind and partially sighted people,
including those who also have other disabilities, are fully included and
lead fulfilling lives. We empower those with a visual impairment to achieve
their potential and a brighter future.
*Royal Blind School <http://www.royalblind.org/royalblindschool/> |
Learning Hub <http://learninghub.royalblind.org/> | Forward Vision
<http://www.royalblind.org/forwardvision/> | Braeside House
<http://www.royalblind.org/braesidehouse/> | Scottish Braille Press
<http://www.royalblind.org/scottishbraillepress/> | Kidscene
<http://www.royalblind.org/kidscene/>*
*Royal Blind* <http://www.royalblind.org/>, Scottish Charity Number:
SC017167.
Associated charity *Scottish War Blinded*
<http://www.royalblind.org/warblinded/>, Scottish charity number:
SC002652
Address: 50 Gillespie Crescent, Edinburgh, EH10 4JB. Tel: 0131 229 1456.
Web: *www.royalblind.org* <http://www.royalblind.org>
This email and files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended
for the sole use of the individual or organisation to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
sender immediately and delete it without using, copying, storing,
forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person.
