[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Author Index (this month)][Thread Index (this month)][Top of Archive]

Re: Microsoft Manual of Style vs. github.com/MicrosoftDocs/microsoft-style-guide

Subject: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style vs. github.com/MicrosoftDocs/microsoft-style-guide
From: Lauren <lauren -at- writeco -dot- net>
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:37:43 -0700

The takeaway is that you can take it away but that doesnât mean that what the public provides will be in the copy incorporated in the never-final online guide. Microsoft looks like it is flailing with new ideas and it has built itself on flailing to success. You say Microsoft is doing the opposite of Apple. Using Git resembles the ever popular open source business model. We are watching a transformation and a possible new approach to technical writing style guides.

This thread got too deep in to issues that do not interest me. Early on, there was a question of how to address related references and a suggestion of MMoS. MMoS no more; it has ceased to be. I know a dead style guide when I see one. MMoS is replaced by the Microsoft Writing Style Guide. I am saying that MMoS should not be used as a writing reference because it is obsolete and the online Microsoft guide is the current version of Microsoftâs writing âstyle.â

As far as finding a resource to support an argument about whether to say âreferenceâ in the verb sense or to say âsee also,â I think the online Microsoft guide is good enough. As far as finding a reliable style guide, I would not use it and I never relied on MMoS, either. I think when it comes to writing style, Microsoft has always been at the low end of the range of reliable resources, if it ever was a reliable resource.


On 8/16/2018 11:46 AM, Tony Chung wrote:

What they say and what Github enables are totally different things. If MS
is not open to external pull requests against their documentation, there's
nothing stopping us from forking the MSWSG to, say the TechWhirlers Style
Guide and rewriting everything to fit our image. But then that begs the
question, why start with something so MS-centric? Apple has its own Human
Interface Style Guide that describes things almost exactly the opposite of
MS. And as Robert mentioned, and that I am inclined to agree, why Markdown?

-T

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives

Follow-Ups:

References:
Microsoft Manual of Style vs. github.com/MicrosoftDocs/microsoft-style-guide: From: Robert Lauriston
Re: Microsoft Manual of Style vs. github.com/MicrosoftDocs/microsoft-style-guide: From: Lauren
Re: Microsoft Manual of Style vs. github.com/MicrosoftDocs/microsoft-style-guide: From: Lauren
Re: Microsoft Manual of Style vs. github.com/MicrosoftDocs/microsoft-style-guide: From: Tony Chung

Previous by Author: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style vs. github.com/MicrosoftDocs/microsoft-style-guide
Next by Author: Re: Gmail [Reply] routing help
Previous by Thread: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style vs. github.com/MicrosoftDocs/microsoft-style-guide
Next by Thread: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style vs. github.com/MicrosoftDocs/microsoft-style-guide

[Top of Archive] | [Author Index (this month)] | [Thread Index (this month)]

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads