4 ms·
Complaining about proper punctuation in web page titles seems a little pedantic. Using colons and other strange "punctuation" is a substitute for graphics and
by aneth 16y ago
Complaining about proper punctuation in web page titles seems a little pedantic. Using colons and other strange "punctuation" is a substitute for graphics and styling since these are not available in title bars. For those cases where it is meant to be sort-of punctuation, I'd say titles on the internet simply follow a different set of rules and conventions than prose, or anything else prior, because they serve a different purpose.
- jacobolus 16y agoThe New Yorker (e.g.) is a publication known for its typographical pedantry, for example writing diaereses in words such as coöperate or naïve; it’s entirely uncharacteristic of them to have sloppily punctuated titles.
- aneth 16y agoIn this case, it's not typography - it's the closet thing they can get to graphic design using ASCII in one line and still being dignified. If instead of a colon it was a pretty little fig leaf we'd all feel more pedantically satisfied. Unfortunately, that's not possible in titles - so they use a colon. Regardless, I'm guessing the editor of the New Yorker has been to their website. Her approval defines what it is that the New Yorker does, and what it is known for. Sniping at such an organization previously known for pedantry is a bit presumptuous.
- chronomex 16y agoUnicode is full of dingbats, most of which display properly in all modern software: http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/block/dingbats/utf8test.htm http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/block/dingbats/utf8t...
- aneth 16y agoFair enough. If they used them though, they might get sniped at for not sticking to web conventions. There's no cover from snipers on the internet. There might be reasons not to as well - I imagine they break some bookmark tools, etc.