2 ms·
Strongly disagree. This is an abomination. Language and typography have to be elegant in addition to intelligible.
by bambax 5y ago
Strongly disagree. This is an abomination. Language and typography have to be elegant in addition to intelligible.
- reedf1 5y agoWould you sacrifice clarity for elegance?
- ttctciyf 5y agoWhat clarity is sacrificed? Is it in doubt that the sentence ended? The single period favours both elegance and clarity over slavish and unimaginative punctiliousness.
- bambax 5y agoGood question! Perhaps one of the most important questions regarding writing... I would argue clarity and elegance don't oppose one another; elegance means being as clear as possible without being clumsy or heavy handed, and without insulting your reader's intelligence. Said reader is not a machine, they're supposed to be fluent in the language. We should reduce ambiguity as much as possible, but no more than that. Adding signs where no ambiguity remains only worsens the signal to noise ratio.
- Stratoscope 5y agoBesides, if you look at it upside down, you might be tempted to invoke Godwin's Law.
- dspillett 5y agoThey don't have to be. They should be where-ever possible without affecting meaning or legibility.