Re: draft release announcement

[Trevor Bača]

On 10/31/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen escreveu:
> > Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> >> The practice is silly today.
> >
> > I think so too, but it is still what people expect?
>
> only in the US, I think.

And not even all the time even here, FWIW. (See below.)

I've lived in the US my entire life and had plenty of chance to think
abou this issue of "title case" editing copy in American and UK
English. And it's basically a mess.

The rule still taught in US classrooms for capitalizing titles is that
the "important" words all get capitals (which comes down to something
like prepositions and articles being lowercase, with everything else
in uppercase). This is obvious nonsense. But it's still what's taught
and still what's -- unfortunately -- expected (as Jan points out).

HOWEVER there are a couple of important exceptions. To start with,
since this "rule" is no rule at all, the Library of Congress (no less)
refuses to use it. Pick up any English-language book you happen to
have sitting nearby, open to the first couple of pages, and look at
the in-catalog number given there. The title is given in French (or
international, or whatever you want to call it) title case: first word
and proper nouns capitalized and nothing else. The reason is that the
French / intl rule is an actual rule. And so the LOC uses it for every
book published in the US, usually in direct contradiction to what the
editor and publisher put on the cover and the spine.

The other exceptions in the US are the titles of articles in
scientific journals which always use French / international title case
(first word and proper nouns only), probably because most journals are
inherently international in their intended audience (even if they're
English-only).

So, my personal preference on this point is the same as Han-Wen's: the
practice is old, out-dated and ridiculous in the US, even if still
widely practiced, as Jan points out. For all the careful time and
attention we spend making sure LilyPond output adheres as closely as
possible to beautiful examples of notation from the past, I think we
can afford ourselves the liberty to skip this one particular out-moded
practice.

;-)


Trevor Bača
address@hidden