<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Low-Tech Proofreading</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/05/07/low-tech-proofreading/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/05/07/low-tech-proofreading/</link>
	<description>Appellate Attorney Greg May on Practice and Developments in the Appellate Courts of California</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:33:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Complex Litigator</title>
		<link>http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/05/07/low-tech-proofreading/comment-page-1/#comment-1976</link>
		<dc:creator>The Complex Litigator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 00:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calblogofappeal.com/?p=827#comment-1976</guid>
		<description>I understand the irony (and humor) of observing that an article about proofreading doesn&#039;t demonstrate the process.  But when we get out to the frosty edge where we have to remember capitalization rules for preposition based on word length, the rules begin to hijack the purpose of the writing in the first instance - communication of ideas.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand the irony (and humor) of observing that an article about proofreading doesn&#8217;t demonstrate the process.  But when we get out to the frosty edge where we have to remember capitalization rules for preposition based on word length, the rules begin to hijack the purpose of the writing in the first instance &#8211; communication of ideas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg May</title>
		<link>http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/05/07/low-tech-proofreading/comment-page-1/#comment-1951</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg May</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 17:02:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calblogofappeal.com/?p=827#comment-1951</guid>
		<description>Mister Thorne, 

You&#039;ve just hit upon a great point.  That is a rule I try to live by even in my blog post titles, though less strictly so than in my argumentative headings in briefs.  And I will confess that sometimes, i intentionally violate the rule to give the heading or title a better &quot;look.&quot;  (Which certainly isn&#039;t the case with the title of his piece -- nothing sticks out more than a capitalized &quot;A&quot; in a title.  I wonder if he cringed when he saw it in print.)

One rule I&#039;ve run across is that prepositions of 5 or more letters &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; be capitalized.  That rule is from the California Style Manual, &quot;A Handbook of Legal Style for California Courts and Lawyers,&quot; according to its subtitle, and the generally accepted authority in this state for writing submitted to the courts.

The CSM also says that words following a hyphen should &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; be capitalized.  Thus, accordin to the CSM, the title of this post should be &quot;Low-tech Proofreading&quot; instead of &quot;Low-Tech Proofreading.&quot;  I&#039;ll admit that rule is one I regularly and intentionally disregard, as I did in the title of this post, because I think the lower case looks so out of place that it is a distraction.

Thoughts?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mister Thorne, </p>
<p>You&#8217;ve just hit upon a great point.  That is a rule I try to live by even in my blog post titles, though less strictly so than in my argumentative headings in briefs.  And I will confess that sometimes, i intentionally violate the rule to give the heading or title a better &#8220;look.&#8221;  (Which certainly isn&#8217;t the case with the title of his piece &#8212; nothing sticks out more than a capitalized &#8220;A&#8221; in a title.  I wonder if he cringed when he saw it in print.)</p>
<p>One rule I&#8217;ve run across is that prepositions of 5 or more letters <em>should</em> be capitalized.  That rule is from the California Style Manual, &#8220;A Handbook of Legal Style for California Courts and Lawyers,&#8221; according to its subtitle, and the generally accepted authority in this state for writing submitted to the courts.</p>
<p>The CSM also says that words following a hyphen should <em>not</em> be capitalized.  Thus, accordin to the CSM, the title of this post should be &#8220;Low-tech Proofreading&#8221; instead of &#8220;Low-Tech Proofreading.&#8221;  I&#8217;ll admit that rule is one I regularly and intentionally disregard, as I did in the title of this post, because I think the lower case looks so out of place that it is a distraction.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mister Thorne</title>
		<link>http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/05/07/low-tech-proofreading/comment-page-1/#comment-1948</link>
		<dc:creator>Mister Thorne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 16:27:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calblogofappeal.com/?p=827#comment-1948</guid>
		<description>Seems as if nobody proofed the title of the piece. Either that, or someone forgot that articles, conjunctions, and prepositions are set l.c. in titles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems as if nobody proofed the title of the piece. Either that, or someone forgot that articles, conjunctions, and prepositions are set l.c. in titles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
