> The standard for hard-copy manuscripts submitted to editors
> is 60 characters. (The typeface is usually Courier 10 cpi,
> so the line is six inches long.) I fail to see why 64
> characters should be too short for the screen, if 60 is the
> standard among publishing professionals.
>
> Most of the world may use over 70, but most of the world
> does not follow professional guidelines. FAQ writers are not
> most of the world.
My speculation (and it is only speculation) is that 60 characters per
line and 10cpi Courier as a "standard" for submitting manuscripts to
editors has to do with maintaining adequate margin space of approx. 1
inch both left and right for proofreader markup. Implying that this
professional guideline, which was widely applicable and perhaps still
is, somehow *ought* to be mechanically, i.e., identically, applied by
FAQ maintainers seems rather forced. After all, in the electronic
world, markup (and feedback, more generally) is not done by scribbling
proofreader symbols in the margins. If, at a more abstract level, one
accepts that the goal of "60 characters per line 10 cpi Courier" is
making it easier for those who want to give feedback to the author to
do so, then FAQ maintainers who want to fulfill that goal should
consider making it is as easy as possible for readers of their FAQ
(including net novices) to be able to reply to them by email.
[How's that for tying threads back together? :)]
--
Ping Huang <pshuang@mit.edu>; more info: http://web.mit.edu/pshuang/.plan
Disclaimer: unless explicitly otherwise stated, my
statements represent my personal viewpoints only.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved