TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: bibliography [Ref:C673998] [Ref:C685916] From:Geoff King <Geoff -dot- King -at- NA -dot- NWMARKETS -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 26 Dec 1997 14:49:03 +0000
Mark, you haven't convinced me. One can put a telephone number in a
citation, for instance, without saying it's a telephone number because we
all know it's a telephone number. One can give an ISBN number in a
citation without explaining what it is. I've never heard anyone complain
that it was unclear.
Online and Internet are both EXPLICITLY given in the address http://www.
It can't be anything else. (Except prolix.)
geoff -dot- king -at- na -dot- nwmarkets -dot- com
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: bibliography [Ref:C673998] [Ref:C685916]
Author: INTERNET TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU at Multimessage
Date: 12/25/97 1:21 PM
While it is a little redundant, it might be better to stick with the Online,
Internet, etc. stuff. "Online" identifies the kind of source (i.e., not
traditional print) and "Internet" specifies which of many online sources (as
opposed to Dialog, etc.) you have gotten the information from. The http://etc.
the specific file, and while the http:// format will not appear anywhere but the
Internet, it might be better to keep the other pieces of information for the sak
of stylistic consistency.
Geoff King wrote:
> OK, I'll buy most of this citation. When you claim, however, it to be "the
> correct format," my question is: according to whom?
> Also, it seems gratuitous to me to put in "Online." Even "Internet" is
> unnecessary. With an URL starting "http://www," it is perforce on the Interne
> as well as online.
> geoff -dot- king -at- na -dot- nwmarkets -dot- com
> >The correct format for documenting on-line sources is, by example, as
> >Harris, Elizabeth L. "Housing the War-Time Workers." Architronic vol.
> >4, No. 1.02 (1995) 11 pp. Online. Internet. 14 May 1996.
> >Available http://www,saed,kent.edu/architronic/v4nl/wwl.pg10html.