🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Pine.3.07.9306030813.A10976-9100000@csuvax1> Dr Jim Cummins <cummins@CSUVAX1.CSU.MURDOCH.EDU.AU> writes:
>Whatever you play around with, there's no substitution for actually
>proofreading and correcting your formatted bibliography by old-fashioned
>(dare I say it) reading!  It's very easy to insert an "s" where it's
>called for, and probably a lot simpler than constructing elaborate
>algorithms for rare problems.
>
>Jim Cummins
>Murdoch University
>Western Australia

I disagree.

The whole point of using automation with an application like
EndNote is to END the tedious process of being concerned with
"ed." vs. "eds."  This is an ideal place for our technological
slave, the computer, to do the work for us, so that our
proofing can be done at a higher level.

It is issues like this where EndNote most fails its users.  Long
ago I posted a list of useful improvements where computer
formatting could save MANY hours of human attention to details
that are, quite frankly, stupidly adhered to by publishers.  A
good example would be the considerable variety of ways of
formatting page ranges (e.g., 100-1 vs. 100-01, etc.).  It would
be a great boon were EndNote able to observe the correct
formatting of such things, as did even an inferior product
such as Notebook II/Bibliography.

"In the state of nature, there was no editing of `ed.' vs.
`eds.'"--Rousseau

"Editors of the world unite--all we have to lose is slavery
to a myriad of non-orthogonal, illogical, and idiosyncratic
publishing styles."--Marx and Engels

"Down with mind-numbing editing of details."--Situationist graffito

John G. Norman
English Department
Ohio State University
jgn+@osu.edu