Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 12:07:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: samlubell at verizon.net
To: WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Nebula winners
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

Bottom posting this time

May 18, 2010 03:06:09 PM, WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net wrote:

>
>>>> "Mike B." 5/18/2010 11:00 AM >>>
>Michael Walsh wrote:
>>> "Mike B." 5/17/2010 11:05 PM >>>
>
>>> Yeah, I figured the red ones were the winners, but why some are in =
>> bold
>>> and some aren't isn't obvious. Neither is the reason for some being =
in
>>> italics while others aren't, or why the ones that are bold also have =
=
>>> no quote marks.
>>
>> To me it's fairly obvious.
>
>But if it's only obvious to people who already know, why bother? Keys
>are useful when encoding information non-obviously. Now, if they'd =
done
>it in XML, a key wouldn't be necessary unless they picked really =
stupid
>tag names.

I suspect Mark Kelly was following The Chicago Manual of Style:

8.187 Articles

Quoted titles of articles and features in periodicals and newspapers, =
chapter and part titles, titles of short stories or essays, and individual =
selections in books are set in roman type and enclosed in quotation marks. =
(If there are quotation marks in the original title, single quotation =
marks must be used, as in the fourth example.)
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch08/ch08_sec187.html

mjw

-----------

Yes, but why bold for books and italicized for films.  By standard rules, both should be italicized.