Given that more and more information is being repurposed, I've become
against making things fit the old printed model.
The xref formats you describe are from print. But I'm thinking more and more
of formatting and content as separate.
I would set the xrefs as simple as possible in Frame to handle other
But that's just me. I'd rather not have writers trying to figure out what to
use when and I'd really like to not have checking these formats in the
IM: sharonvburton at yahoo.com
[mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Allison
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 12:52 PM
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Cross-ref formats
Some follow-up questions:
1. I've been looking at the Chicago Manual, 15th edition. I'd expect a great
honking treatment of this subject, but I'm not seeing it. All the
cross-reference i9nformation is presented with reference to indexes and
bibliographies. The sections referring to cross-references "in text" are
discussions of the editor's obligation to check cross-references!
Is there an exhaustive section on x-ref format, in text, that I'm missing?
2. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you , to discover just what a
stick-in-the-mud I really am. I thought italics were sacrosanct for
referring to the titles of separately bound publications. (Although how
purely electronic publications can be "bound" is a topic for another day.)
But .. . you've all gotten over this hurdle and use italics to identify
cross-references? Like: "See <open italics> Pots and Pans <close italics>
on page 85," where "Pots and Pans" is a couple of paragraphs with header in
a much longer chapter of a much larger *separately bound* publication,
whether physical or digital?
I must sit down.
In that case, do you also put your italicized x-refs in a different color,
so as to distinguish them from the titles of separately bound publications,
which you might also mention in your text?