Subject: [rfc-i] CMOS

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:58:06 +1300

The style guide says that the RFC Editor uses the Chicago Manual of Style,
but I notice that it lives behind a paywall.

What's a poor author supposed to do, when confronted with a review comment
that is really a matter of style? I can't check the style guide.

(In this case, I need to check the strange theory that "that" introduces
a restrictive clause whereas "which" is non-restrictive, or maybe it's
the other way round, and who cares anyway, because the meaning should be
clear without such an implied semantic distinction?)

((In case it isn't obvious, I believe this is a distinction invented on
the Western side of the Atlantic; it was certainly not something that,
or which, I ever heard on the Eastern side.))
 
Regards
   Brian

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 19:10:31 -0400

> or which, I ever heard on the Eastern side.))

You may think it was invented on the Western side of the Atlantic, but
my Gowers Fowler discusses it in some detail.  

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Oct 2017 19:44:49 -0000

>that is really a matter of style? I can't check the style guide.

Could author take the editor's advice rather than arguing about nits?

R's,
John

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:50:53 +1300

> Could author take the editor's advice rather than arguing about nits?

Generally, yes, and I rarely have a quarrel with the RFC Editor's editing.
But guidance at an earlier stage might be very useful for many of our
authors, and something freely available on the web would be better than
something behind a paywall. In any case, CMOS is far too long for most
people to use as a quick reference.

    Brian

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Oct 2017 21:45:12 -0400

> people to use as a quick reference.

That's why we have copy editors, so authors don't have to worry about 
style nits.  Perhaps the author could just take the editor's advice.

I suspect I've dealt with at least as many copy editors as anyone else 
here, and that's what I always do.

R's,
John