🚀 go-pugleaf

--------------------(Part 1 of 3)------------------------------
Elements of E-Text Style
Version 1.0
9 August 1993

This file should be named ESTYLE10.TXT or estyle10.txt.


Copyright (c) 1993 by John E. Goodwin.  All Rights Reserved.

You may make and distribute verbatim copies of this work for non-
commercial purposes using any means, provided this copyright notice is 
included in all such copies.

Contact:  John E. Goodwin
          P.O. Box 6022
          St. Charles, IL  60174
          jegoodwin@delphi.com

[John Goodwin is available to consult, write, and teach courses on E-
text issues and Internetworking]


Abstract:  This manual discusses how to use electronic text (E-text) as 
a communications medium distinct from the print media.  The manual is 
written in a non-technical style, such as a humanist-of-little-brain 
might enjoy reading.  

  o  You can learn how to write effective E-text for personal, business, 
and scholarly communication.  

  o  It includes sections on preparing forms and texts for electronic 
response and on writing effective and business-like E-mail letters.  

  o  There is a brief section on Standard Generalized Markup Language, a 
coding standard of interest to humanists.


Just to prove how non-technical it all is, here is an exceptional lapse 
into technical jargon, in case you know what the Internet and FTP 
archives are:

    This work is a companion volume to _E-Mail 101_, available free as
    ftp://mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu:/etext/etext93/email025.txt.


<title>  Elements of E-Text Style

  =Preface=     An Apology for E-Text

  =Part I=      Writing for an E-Text Audience

  =Part II=     Specific Differences of Style and Mechanics

  =Part III=    A Very Brief Style Manual

  =Appendix A=  Technical Details:  Relationship to SGML and TEI

  =Table I=     Full Table of Contents  (go to very end of this file)


<Preface>

    This work grew out of my earlier course notes published under the 
title _EMAIL 101_.  It was originally projected to be a three chapter 
section concerning the special needs of writers who wished their works 
to be transportable by the electronic networks.  The chapters were not 
included in the original release as they existed only in outline form.

Over the course of Summer 1993 I gradually came to realize that E-text 
was a communication medium in its own right, with its own needs and 
conventions, its own strengths and weaknesses, and not merely the 
bastard child of the print medium.  Consequently, many questions of 
style, long ago settled for print media and fixed into rules in style 
manuals, needed to be re-examined in light of the new medium.

Since, it seemed to me, that no one had set out to treat the stylistic 
considerations of writing E-text, at least at any length, I decided to 
expand my three chapters into the present work.  I set out to write down 
systematically some observations I had made concerning the differences 
between E-text and "ordinary" writing.  I treat E-text as a legitimate 
medium of expression, one that must be addressed on its own terms and 
without unnecessary reference to how the words might look on paper or 
how the work might be useful if printed out.

For reasons that I will discuss at length in the first part, only a 
small fraction of E-text will ever see the light of print.  While paper 
may offer a better resolution image and a more perspicuous whole, E-text 
excels at ease of production and portability.  It can be copied simply, 
transported great distances in seconds by electronic networks, and 
stored on magnetic media--floppy disks, hard drives, and CD-ROMs-- that 
are less bulky and cheaper than paper.  

The extraordinary growth of E-mail in the past few years, from a medium 
used by a few scientists and government officials to one accessible to 
millions, often in a humanistic or business setting, demands that we 
give the writing of E-text the attention it deserves.  If you wish to 
communicate effectively, you will have to master this new medium.  It is 
a necessary part of education--if only we knew what to teach!

Good writing is, in many respects, the same for any medium.  And the 
first thing any writer learns is that their** writing must fit both the 
audience and the medium being used.  We cannot pretend any longer that 
we are writing for print or that our audience will be looking at 
anything other than a computer screen.

  **  I deliberately use "their" as an ambiguous pronoun throughout.

Just as the print media differ among themselves depending on the 
intended audience, expected lifetime of the text, and peculiarities of 
the medium, so E-text differs from print.  

This work is organized as follows:

  In the first part we delineate the major differences between the print 
media and E-text.  

  In the second part, we discuss specific issues such as techniques
for designing a visually appealing layout, or representing characters.

  The third and final part is a brief style manual for writing E-text.  
It is not offered as a set of prescriptions, but as an example of how 
the principles in the second part can be realized in practice.

                       +     +     +

In this introductory section, I would like to make a brief apology for 
E-text.  It is not usual, in discussing the print media, to begin a 
manual on style with a defense of the worth of the medium; however, E-
text is so new that many persons will say "Why bother with it?".  They 
deserve an answer.

The most insidious objection to E-text is the claim that it is just 
printed text before it has been printed out.  In effect, this denies 
either that

  (1)  There is any difference between the needs of E-text and the needs 
of print; or

  (2)  That all text is printed out before being read.

The second premise is demonstrably false--most E-mail correspondence and 
anything longer than about 25 pages obtained over a computer network 
suffice as examples.  

The first premise requires a more extended answer, since it is the 
source of a great deal of confusion.  In fact, the entire first part of 
this work is devoted to refuting it.  In this brief apology I will 
answer two simpler objections:  that E-text is so esoteric that it is of 
no interest to ordinary persons; or that it is so commonplace as to be 
beneath our consideration.  I call these two objections the "Ham Radio" 
and "Telephone" objections, respectively.


    Not every communications medium is of interest to a large number of 
persons.  Take, for example, Amateur Radio.  Using short-wave radio to 
communicate requires a fair technical knowledge and special equipment.  
Because of these two investments, neither the medium nor the skills 
required to master it are common.  This situation is very similar to 
that of computers in the late '70's.  Computers were not commonplace, 
being owned mostly by hobbyists.  Communication and distribution of 
information was primitive, often by floppy disk passed hand to hand.  
And the special programs required to create and read E-text--word 
processors--were uncommon and required special skills.

On the other hand, some will object that E-text is now so commonplace 
that it needs no consideration.  You don't read style manuals about how 
to talk on the Telephone do you?  Although some scholars may discuss how 
telephone conversation differs from the ordinary face-to-face variety, 
most of us use telephones un-self-consciously.  E-text is like typing a 
letter.  Who cares?

Although the *mechanics* of talking on a telephone are trivial, the 
social implications are not.  One can point out, for example, that to 
most people, their parents have become persons that they talk to on the 
telephone and not persons that they work with every day and see face-to-
face.  The social implications of this are enormous; the technology 
trivial.  

Similarly with E-text:  while the mechanics are easily mastered and 
perhaps of little interest, E-text together with global computer 
networks make possible a form of community that didn't exist prior to 
the medium.  The sort of community that will form around E-text is 
different from the kind of communities that are centered on the 
telephone.  Rather than family or casual friends, it is likely to be a 
community that cares about a single issue or agenda.  

These communities can range from complex communities like companies or 
groups of scholars, to persons sharing a single, simple interest.  
Already, in our society, we find that technology has allowed us to adopt 
a pattern of individualism never seen in the world before.  Most face-
to-face communication is with your immediate family, your co-workers, 
and perhaps a few friends.  These friends are not as likely to live next 
to you as in a small town, and you see them less often.  

E-text both carries this atomization to its extreme and simultaneous 
offers a way out from its worst effects.  It is possible, using the 
medium, to form important relationships with persons you have never seen 
or talked to--this is individual atomism in the extreme.  At the same 
time, E-text provides a communications medium that can go beyond.  It 
solves the problem, inherent in much of our society, of shallow 
relationships with other humans.

These new, deep relationships can be business or scholarly, , or just 
old-fashioned friendship.  Thus communicating well carries social 
implications that go far deeper than talking well on the telephone.  How 
you write E-text may affect how you *appear* to potential friends, 
clients, and one day perhaps even family.**

  ** It is only a matter of time before parents of college children 
realize they can have a much closer relationship with their children for 
the 10 dollars a month it costs to open an E-mail account.

Despite the unnaturalness compared to talking, in many ways E-text is 
superior to the telephone as a way to "keep in touch".  The telephone 
requires that both persons be available simultaneously.  Most 
conversations are short and business-like, with marathon sessions being 
reserved for close family and a few friends.  

But it is not for writing the occasional personal note that one needs a 
style manual.  Unlike the telephone, E-mail has more serious uses--the 
same uses that print media have.  It is used for business, persuasion, 
publication, and scholarship.  E-mail may become as commonplace as 
telephone, but it will not be approached with the same casualness.  


    Over the course of the past year or so I have seen collaborations of 
individuals in many fields spring up.  These collaborations at first 
were of course among computer scientists.  Then, in the last couple of 
years the Scientists have caught on.  There are signs that all academic 
disciplines will soon have such collaborations.  The cost in equipment 
is low and the advantages great.  Software for business "working groups" 
is already in the marketplace.  

Collaboration by E-mail--and a consequent reliance on E-text--may become 
the dominant social model for certain kinds of collaboration:  E.g., 
within a company or scholarly community--wherever the persons cannot 
meet face to face.

There are many who say that E-text as we now know it--the typewriter-
like production of character-oriented terminals--will soon give way to a 
new medium, mulitmedia.  In this view, newer computers will spawn newer 
media and the old ones will be forgotten.  In five years, ten at the 
most, E-text will be a thing of the past.  Surely, the argument goes, we 
should not invest time in perfecting a medium that is little better than 
a fad.

Multimedia indeed shows great promise.  I have no doubt that soon it 
will be possible to mail graphic images, audio, and video clips along 
with text.  Printers will print not only color but black and white.  And 
visual formatting information like font, point size, and so on will be 
sent alongside the basic text.  Not only that, but these capabilities 
will become part of every household, every phone system, cable system, 
and cellular communications network.  Personal computers will replace 
telphones as the "communications center" of the household.

The vision of multimedia is one of old media--color magazines, 
television, telephone, radio--being reborn in the new guise of 
electronics.  But what do you think will be a large component of each 
and every mulitmedia message?  Could it be that most of it will be E-
text?  I think multimedia will turn out to be a lot like a letter to 
home.  We may send an occasional picture, or even an audio cassette, but 
most of the communication will be in our writing.  

Ultimately, writing is easier than taking photographs or editing video 
clips--though not as easy as talking.  It takes less time, less capital, 
and less effort.  Multimedia may be good for advertising, for writing 
textbooks, and for fun; but for just plain communicating?  If it 
requires more thought or needs to reach more persons than a short 
telephone call, it will be E-text.  Multimedia will fill the niche of 
four color magazines, coffee table art books, the biology textbooks, and 
advertising.

Look around you, at your bookshelves, and notice how many have no 
pictures.  Think how many typed letters your office sends out compared 
to the number of four-color brochures it creates.  Most information is 
disseminated by the cheapest possible means.  Right now, electronic text 
is that cheapest means.  As more and more persons learn how to get it, 
it will become the dominant medium.  E-text is the black and white print 
of the electronic age.

The uses of E-text are as diverse as the uses of print.  The chief 
innovation of the new medium is the fact that it places the capability 
to publish in the hands of *anyone*.  The capital required to spread 
information or ideas has been reduced to a level any person, or at least 
any community of persons, can afford.

The E-text revolution is that individuals are no longer dependent on 
institutions or even businesses to create, share, and gather 
information.**  Every interest and splinter group, every church or 
synagogue, every would-be author, student, or scholar can collaborate 
with others, write, and share texts.  

  ** They are still dependent on hardware, software, and 
telecommunications.

As E-text becomes more and more acceptable, it will become the medium of 
expression used by the masses.  If you wish to reach them, you will have 
to learn to write it effectively.  Education--real education--has always 
been a rather solitary effort.  The right conditions seem to involve 
access to a good library, a chance to talk with collaborators, write new 
material, and have it discussed by the community of interested persons.  
E-text can bring these necessary conditions for education out of the 
university to the simplest home.


    E-text is at the stage the European vernaculars were at the time of 
the Renaissance.  There were many doubters who pointed to the 
established Latin tongue as the medium of communication.  But, in time, 
reality forced even the scholars to yield.  A revolution was 
accomplished in which masses of ordinary people could own books and even 
on occasion produce them.  The implications for society and learning 
were staggering.

Like that earlier time, when print was new, there is now much innovation 
and experimentation, and the wise practitioner will sift carefully the 
techniques and suggestions offered both here and by others.  In time we 
shall have our Dantes, our Bacons, and our Shakespeares; the persons who 
will show us how to make this new medium not only a utilitarian one but 
a sublime one.  For now, let us take those first hesitant steps down 
that path.



<Part I>  Writing for an E-Text Audience:  Basic Problems

Writing for an E-text audience is very much like writing for a print 
audience, but there are subtle differences.  Nowadays, both works 
destined for print and works aimed at the global networks are likely to 
be created on a personal computer.  The advantage of being able to make 
incremental changes to a manuscript, and to create near print-quality 
works with a laser printer--not to mention the advantages of spell-
checkers, automatic footnotes and the like--means that both kinds of 
author will be using a computer.  But one will be aiming for an 
effective and attractive *printed* manuscript and the other will be 
aiming to accomplish the same end on a computer screen.

The difference between E-text and print comes down to two factors:  

  (1) it is not currently possible to create a file that simultaneously 
looks good in print and on the screen, yet is universally accepted by 
all computer programs; and 

  (2) the least common denominator computer screen has a lower 
resolution, a smaller viewing window, and a more limited repertoire of 
visual effects than even a typewriter.

This Chapter will address three questions:

  o  Why write for an E-text audience at all?

  o  Is it possible to write for both audiences at the same time?

  o  How does writing for an E-text audience differ from writing for a 
Print Audience?

In Part II we will explore the extent to which you can have it both 
ways--strategies for getting as close as possible to the Holy Grail of 
Electronic Communications, a file everyone can read that looks just as 
good on the screen and in print.

Part III presents the mechanics of creating E-text in the form of a very 
brief style manual.  The issues of the previous two chapters are 
summarized in a series of suggestions for creating your own effective 
style.

The last Chapter of this part of the course discusses copyright issues 
that effect the distribution of E-text.  These issues, important as they 
are for print media, become paramount concerns when copying your text is 
as easy as pressing a button.

  =Section 1.1=  Why Write for an E-text Audience?

  =Section 1.2=  Is it Possible to Write E-Text and Print at the Same 
Time?

  =Section 1.3=  Differences between E-Text and Print Media

  =Section 1.4=  Version Control


<Section 1.1>  Why Write for an E-text Audience?

The basic position here is that computers are basically machines for 
creating printed text.  This position, contrary to the one taken here, 
has a number of advantages:

  (1) The resolution (appearance) of the final product is superior to 
anything that can be created on the screen;

  (2) Print media are easier to handle and browse;

  (3) Paper is universally accepted and readable--no special hardware or 
programs are required; 

  (4) The product is compatible with all the information-handling 
systems that have been developed for paper (files, libraries, 
catalogues, ... ); and

  (5) The author's copyright is easier to maintain because the final 
text is harder to copy.

These are overwhelming advantages.  I call the resulting situation--
paper is the medium of storage and standard of communication while 
computers and printers are just tools for creating paper--the "cellulose 
interchange standard".  It is well established; it works; and it is hard 
to beat.  It is the norm even in the computing world.  The paper bias, 
e.g. of word processors, is obvious.

Against this view is a reality of modern life:  it is becoming very much 
cheaper to store information in electronic form and comparatively more 
expensive to store it as paper.  Let's consider some facts:

  o  A 300 page book takes up a Megabyte of memory--around one 50 cent 
floppy.

  o  CD-ROM storage lowers the cost to a few pennies for a book.  A 
single CD-ROM can store several hundred books.

  o  An 8 mm video tape can store several *thousand* books.  This means 
that the information in the Harvard University library system, one of 
the world's largest (6 million volumes) would take up few thousand 
cassette tapes presently costing less than $100,000.

Given that, in addition, you can 

  revise electronic text easily, 

  make copies faster, 

  send it further in less time and at less expense, 

  store it more cheaply, 

  print it out, 

  send it as a fax, 

  and convert it to other formats, 

it will soon be a commonplace that *even for documents that are designed 
to be printed out and looked at on paper* the principal means of storing 
and exchanging information will be in electronic format.

So let's get this straight:  we are not discussing whether it is better 
to store and exchange information on paper or electronically.  The bulk 
of information will soon be stored on magnetic media and exchanged 
electronically.  What we are discussing is whether it makes more sense 
to prepare *electronic* documents that look good printed out or ones 
that look good on a screen.

Paper will become (in fact already is) a luxury reserved for the cream 
of the information crop--just as four color printing is reserved for Art 
books, glossy magazines, and advertising, while most other printed 
information is black and white.  You will want the 1% of your 
information you use most often in print form.  You won't be *able* to 
get or afford print versions of most information, any more than you can 
afford to buy everything in hard cover or print every brochure in four 
colors.

And is this so bad?  Why not have a good print library *and* good 
electronic text.  My public library, a very good one, has around 100,000 
volumes and cost several millions to build.  If I want something they 
don't have, I have to wait a week for interlibrary loan, or a xerox 
copy, or a fax.  In most cases I would be happier with an electronic 
version I can look at *today*.  

The point is that paper doesn't compete with E-text, E-text is probably 
information you *would not have* in any other form.  It's books you 
wouldn't have because you can't afford 1000 books right now (but you can 
afford a couple of CD ROMs); it's text you can view (and download) at 
your public library that the library couldn't afford in paper; and it's 
free stuff that can't be distributed for free any other way, because 
paper just costs too much.

Do you have to write E-text?  You do if you want your audience to 
include the 25 million people with E-mail access (projected to be 75 
million in three years).  You do if you want your message to travel as 
far as possible--even if it is intended to be printed at the other end.

So you will write electronic text that will never be printed because you 
*have to*.  That means you need to learn to write effective E-text, 
because there really is no alternative.  Fortunately, if you can write 
well in the print medium, you can write well in E-text.  We'll give you 
a few tips in a moment, but first we need to dispel the notion that it 
is possible to write for both media at the same time.


<Section 1.2>  Is it Possible to Write for E-text and Print at the Same 
Time?

Here we come to the claim I made above, that it is impossible to satisfy 
all three of these criteria with a single file:

  (1) the file can be read by any computer

  (2) the file creates good looking print

  (3) the file looks good on the screen

You can pick two out of three, but you can't get all three.  This is 
unfortunate, but it is also true.  

The only kind of file that is *universally* accepted is the plain text 
file, also called the common =ASCII= file.  Actually, even this is an 
overstatement.  ASCII, the American Standard Code for Information 
Interchange, is a very specific code for representing text.  A 
*fraction* of that code can be translated without difficulty to 
virtually all computers, including the fifty-two letters of the English 
language (both upper and lower case), the ten digits, and a handful of 
punctuation marks.**  But the rest of ASCII--some punctuation marks and 
special "control" characters used by computers (including the common 
tab!)--are off-limits if you want your message to have a truly global 
reach.

  **  It is important to remember that some files that need the full 
ASCII repertoire, e.g. the source code of computer programs, may not 
travel well.

Anyway, if you want a file that looks good in print (criterion 2) and is 
also a plain text file (criterion 1), you *have* to give up criterion 3 
--the file will not look good on the screen.  This is because creating 
"laser quality" output with a "book quality" appearance requires printed 
commands, called =markup=, to be interspersed with text.  This can be 
minimized, but the cost is a text without even the visual effects that 
are possible with a typewriter--underlining, superscripts and 
subscripts, and diacritic marks to name a few.  If you want these 
effects and others typical of book-quality printing--multiple fonts, 
automatic footnotes, and so on--then the markup burden makes the file 
unpleasant to read, i.e. not effective as E-text.

Finally, the question of how to get as close as possible to satisfying 
all three criteria and a discussion of formats and markup is left to 
next chapter.  There has been some success at creating files that look 
good on the screen and in print--using so called WYSIWYG ("what you see 
is what you get") word processors or using SGML ("Standard Generalized 
Markup Language")--but these are not in universal use.  I.e., you have 
to give up criterion 1 to get numbers 2 and 3.

So right now the plain truth is you can have any two out of three but 
not all three.  Sorry.


<Section 1.3>  Differences Between E-text and Print Media

Creating a manuscript on a computer is quite a different process from 
the old fashioned method of revising a manuscript by (literally) cutting 
an pasting typescript, of maintaining bibliographies, and of checking 
spelling against a dictionary.  Most of the peculiarities of using a 
computer are true whether or not the output is meant to be the printed 
page.  Nevertheless, it helps to enumerate a few, since these 
considerations apply in spades to producing E-text:


  o  Computer aided Research and Organization Methods

Note taking, creating bibliographies and databases, and gathering 
information now involves all the techniques discussed in my course 
notes, _EMAIL 101_.**

  **  Available free from:

          //mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu:/etext/etext93/email025.txt.  

  o  Rigidity of Format and Outlining

Word Processing programs enforce a formatting and outlining discipline 
to a degree that would be unusual in the old style.  Outlining 
encourages a strict hierarchical style and the automated formatting 
features make for a more rigorous observance of whatever conventions are 
built into the program used.  

Rigorous formatting is a virtual requirement for E-text, since it is 
otherwise impossible for programs to tell where a chapter starts, say, 
or what portions of the text are italicized.

Spellchecking programs are another example of (welcome?) rigidity of 
style imposed by the new methods.  Rigorous spelling is what enables the 
SEARCH command to find all references to a given subject.

  o  Incomplete drafts are more likely to be circulated

The ease of making changes leads to a more collaborative style of 
working in which draft after draft (not uncommonly 10 or 20) is 
circulated to a large group for comments.  Often documents are *never* 
final, but are instead continuously revised.  It is useful to compare 
this process to the way computer programs are written:

  First a trial version, or "alpha" version is circulated to a few 
select individuals.

  Next a beta version, mostly complete and supposedly correct, is given 
wide circulation as a trial balloon.

  Finally there is a succession of ever more refined upgrades ranging 
from minor changes to major "releases".

It is a good guess that most working documents will be produced in a 
similar way.  In a way, this is similar to the print industries 
"editions" and "printings", except, like the manuscripts themselves, 
there is more consciousness of the structure of the process when 
computers are involved.  Also, the cost of producing minor revisions is 
less, so there is less fanfare for a new edition--and more trouble with 
version control!

  o  Collaborative efforts are easier.

When the drafts we have been discussing are circulated by E-mail, the 
working style discussed above becomes even more natural.  

  o  Backup copies are necessary

Although one might take the precaution of xeroxing an important 
manuscript, failing to make backups of works stored in magnetic media is 
sheer folly for anything that takes longer than 15 minutes to write.
There is a whole new discipline of saving work frequently to disk, 
copying it to backup floppies or tape, and so on.


<Section 1.4>  Version Control

The problem of multiple versions is a big one any time the revision 
process is easy or frequent.  Most computer systems keep track of the 
date a file was last modified--so you can tell which of seven files.**  
But even time stamps won't help if some files are exact copies of 
others--as they should be if you are doing proper backups.  It helps to 
use version numbers like "3.1.5a" to distinguish the multiple copies.  

  ** (three on various floppies, one in a directory "/project/old" and 
two in directory "/project/new", is the most current)

As with any tree structure,** it is often good to use =dotted decimal= 
notation:  Version 5.18.2 means release 2 of minor revision 18 of major 
revision 5.  Version 0.1 is probably a rough draft.  

  ** This concept is discussed in part III of my course, _EMAIL 101_.

You have to be careful:  this notation can either represent successive 
versions or divergent versions.  For example, 1.4.3 can mean the third 
minor change to version 1.4, which was the fourth major change to 
version 4.  This is the most common scheme.  It provides an odometer-
like method of numbering the versions.  It differs from an odometer in 
that you are not forced to increment the next place when you get to the 
tenth revision.  As long as the revision path is a straight line, with 
each version being derived from the version before it, this scheme will 
work.

It gets into trouble if there are any branches in the revision path.  
Suppose two versions, [a] and [b], are both derived from 1.2.  Does 
1.2.1 refer to [a] and 1.2.2 to [b]?  This is a natural way to describe 
*branching* versions, i.e. with a tree notation, but you can't use both 
schemes simultaneously.

It's a good bet that Version Control software--programs that keep track 
of multiple versions, store them as "deltas", or difference files, to 
save space, and allow you to recover *any* past version or display 
differences between versions--will become more common and integrated in 
word processing software.

----------------------(end of Part I)-----------------------