AP vs. Chicago Manual of Style in specs

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 474 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Tuesday, April 30, 2019 - 01:53 pm:    Who here has pondered the above question? Does AP not better reflect CSI's principle of using the shortest but correct form? https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-the-AP-and-Chicago-Style-Guides I personally like the Oxford comma though. Just so you don't get an idiot painting your flag red and sky blue -- one of a zillion possible but improbable scenarios. (Ummm, you did not have a comma in "Red, White and Blue!" So I did red and sky blue.) John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1778 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, April 30, 2019 - 03:05 pm:    AP is better, but not even brief enough. I don't think specs need to read like "proper" written English, so I often go shorter still. And yes, the serial comma is a must (a "shall"?) in specs. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 1081 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, May 01, 2019 - 12:41 pm:    CSI references Chicago Manual of Style. There are a number of other style manuals out there, varying usually in relatively minor details which should not be a problem unless you are deposed on standards of care. I still use the comma. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 748 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, May 01, 2019 - 12:53 pm:    I'll go with clarity and no question about intent, over stylistic purity. And serial comma, yes. George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 893 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, May 06, 2019 - 01:50 am:    I opened the door and there were the strippers, Trump, and Putin. I opened the door and there were the strippers, Trump and Putin. The first is one hell of a party. The second is an image you can't get out of your head. ...and lest I be accused of political bias, I first heard this example using Kennedy and Khrushchev. William C. Pegues Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 976 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, May 06, 2019 - 01:58 am:    The Oxford/Serial Comma - yes! William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP James Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 266 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, May 06, 2019 - 08:46 am:    George, you have put the issue of the serial comma to bed once and for all. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 492 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, May 06, 2019 - 01:42 pm:    Yes, but has he put the issue of the serial comma to bed once, and for all. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS 1-818-219-4937 www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Robert E. Woodburn, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 199 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Monday, May 06, 2019 - 03:05 pm:    George's example shows how using the serial or Oxford comma immediately before "and" in a series of three or more items can sometimes be beneficial, if not essential, for clarity. But more often it is unnecessary, and just inserts an artificial visual pause not usually present in speech. The appropriate use of such commas is a judgment call. Conscientious (or just crochety) authors may take the time to consider such choices thoughtfully -- but an editor's choices may differ. Requiring the Oxford comma is simply an arbitrary attempt to eliminate the choice, which benefits editors by saving the time needed for second-guessing authors' comma choices, and potential appeals and controversies. So the best reasons for requiring such commas are saving time and reducing friction -- both worthwhile goals, especially in non-"literary" fields like spec writing. Foolish consistency may be a hobgoblin of little minds, but arbitrary consistency can save time and grief, even though, in most cases, the Oxford comma is redundant, superfluous, and unnecessary. Personally, I prefer not to use it, but it's not worth a fight... William C. Pegues Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 977 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, May 06, 2019 - 11:11 pm:    Actually, you are so very wrong. It’s not a mater of style books, its actually a point of law: The case is described in the New York Times (and many other publications): https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.html It was not the wording in their contract, but the wording/punctuation of the state law of Maine which failed to use the serial comma. By the way, the legislature of Maine sort of went from bad to worse, they changed all the “,” in the law to “;”. Worse because I think fewer people understand “;” than most any other punctuation -grin! For numerous reference on this case and other use of the Oxford/serial comma, just put “Oxford comma in law” into google search. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 1034 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 08, 2019 - 03:08 am:    "But more often it is unnecessary, and just inserts an artificial visual pause not usually present in speech." So you would say "Red (pause) whiteandblue (no pause)" instead of "Red (pause) white (pause) and blue"? Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 475 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Friday, May 10, 2019 - 01:03 pm:    L OL