[ANSTHRLD] Couple of questions

[tmcd@panix.com]

Using a book versus using a Web page for documentation are almost
identical.

"M{o'}r inghean Chathail" <mor_chathail at yahoo.com> wrote:
> page 4 of 5 at URL

There's hardly any point in that.  Web browser programs (are supposed
to) control the display, with the page author providing content.  Too
many site straightjacket the viewer ... but I digress into a
philosophical argument.  Anyway, the point is, the site designer
CANNOT control what the final user sees.  For example, I use the Opera
Web browser.  While it has many very nice features (speed, keyboard
shortcuts, fine control of turning on/off parameters), for some reason
it prints text at about 36-point type.  I have to print everything in
landscape and even then, one screenful can turn into six pages.

Note that the same problem exists with books.  Different editions of
Withycombe or Reaney & Wilson, for example, have different items and
way different pagination.  Even different "3rd edition" Withycombes
can have different paginations, I'm told.  At least with books,
though, there's a limited number of editions and printings and such.

Also, in some sources one page documents many names.  If there's a
header name (q.v.), it's a lot more helpful to list it than just a
page number (where you'd have to search the whole page).

So, whether for book or Web page, you need to tell them a name or word
to look for as the first priority.  You ought to give the page number
too, because it might help, but it is of less interest.  If it's a
listing of information sorted with header names on each paragraph,
then the best way is to give the item header name: "Feaux is dated in
that spelling to 1245 (Black, s.n. Foo, p. 234)".

"s.n.": "sub nomine", 'under the name'.
"s.v.": "sub verba", 'under the word'.
Or just use "under".

> and printing all the pages if not too many (I count 10 too many)

I have had to deal with the Laurel office files.  There's been two
cullings of inactive files for archiving, yet there's still some 15
filing cabinets almost full, and I have to go over to Mari's and
wrestle the three new filing cabinets into place.  If all the info for
your name is listed on one page, then two pages (that plus the title
page) is preferred.

But if you trim too much and don't understand all of what you're
dealing with, you might lose the crucial information you need.  It's
better to err on the side of volume and trust that those above you can
toss extra sheets at need.  But as the number of pages you're
contemplating copying goes up, please cast a gimlet eye on it.

Oh, and please use double-sided copying.  Please.

> or by printing the first page, and the page(s) the info is/are

Exactly.  There's no fundamental difference between using a book
versus using a Web page for documentation, and that's what you do for
a book too.  Well, where "first page" really means "all the pages that
identify the book so that someone else could find it".  For the
average book, that's usually the title page and the reverse of the
title page (because the publication information is usually there).  A
Web page usually has a title and author at the top.  For a Web page,
make sure the URL is on at least one page: that's part of "someone
else could find it".  Web browsers usually take care of that
automatically, though.  Date accessed should be included too, and
again, Web browsers often take care of that too.

Oh, for book or Web, on your copies, please take a highlighter and
highlight the occurrences of your name, or underline it or put arrows
in the margins, or somehow make it easier for the viewer to pick out
where on that dense page your particular info is.

> on as well as any pages citing other sources for thaat info.

Well.  That's probably the most prudent rule when you aren't sure
what's needed or what exactly it's saying ("err on the side of
volume", supra).  But if you find a page dating "Daniel" in an English
context in the 12th Century, and you want a 12th C English name, you
can stop with that.

> PS: Ask Ask!!!  Heralds are right up there with the bards,
> jongleurs, etc for wanting to talk

Please ask.  Someone inexperienced really doesn't have stupid
questions, and yes, we do like to explain.  And even if you do
actually manage to stumble on a stupid question, I _INFINITELY_ prefer
to quickly answer a stupid question than laboriously fix the results
of a stupid assumption.

>> Bridget the Stargazer (I hope officially some day soon

I suggest you indeed work on that name quite soon.  There are several
things that I think, albeit with little learning (hence a dangerous
thing), raise red flags in terms of registerability and period style.
You might could start to contemplate how important it is to _you
personally_ (the one who has to bear the name) to have a really
authentic period-style name versus a registerable name that might not
be authentic at all.

Daniel "double modals ya y'all" de Lincolia
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com; tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work address