Yes, I completely agree that "the most important things are for the
writing to be clear and
understandable by the target audience, and for the information to be
accurate".
My final word on this is that you should change "no benefit" to "little
benefit".
I have also been pointed to examples using your style, and I admit, it
works for me.
Best regards,
Lou
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Lou Iorio wrote:
I can certainly live with your rules; I was simply looking for
justification. I have seen none yet.
You have been given plenty. There is no benefit in using the other
style (since both are legitimate) and there is a significant drawback
in terms of training our writers, and work for our reviewers and
editors. ... because I've worked here mostly as a reviewer, and I
don't want to go We have limited resources and we must be careful as
to where to use them.
Thinking this over some more, I must say that in my opinion the only
"justification" we need is that our choice is easier to implement and
not wrong.
As Daniel says, the other style provides no benefit and editing to get
it right takes time away from other, far more important things that we
should be doing... at least if you believe (as we do) that the most
important things are for the writing to be clear and understandable by
the target audience, and for the information to be accurate.
Regards, Jean
