Format/Notation Issues

[Aiwendil]

Findegil wrote:

About XX-YY-ZZ: I hope I will be able to follow that system when I am inside the projected text from the begining. It is good to have it explained again in full. I think what should be avioded is the mixing of YY as we did in FG. Bye, bye Balrogs, Mechanical Monsters and the sections all got their own YY with completly unconected numbers.

As I understand it, the reason for the B! and D! Balrog and Dragon changes was that the validity of these changes rested on a point that was not yet quite settled. What I mean is that if (as in fact happened) we decided to revert to the old mechanical dragon idea, it was easier to simply eliminate all the D! changes than to hunt through all the changes to the text for anything involving dragons. So I think there is something to be said for that system.

On the other hand, you're right that it would be preferrable not to have some changes numbered out of sequence with the changes around them.

I suppose in the end I lean toward your view.

Since underlining is possible we have landed by the original system. If nobody has any objection against it, I we should use the vertical stroke "|" to separate the source information from the text, especially since the roman numerlas would other wise be very confusing.

Well, the source information is already supposed to be bold. Or is it? Looking back at the list of notations I don't see that listed. But it was the convention used in some of FoG, anyway, to write the source like this:

. . . . . . . <Q30 . . . . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . .

I think that makes the source easily enough distinguished from the surrounding text.

Actually, I don't imagine that the HoMe volume will be the relevant code in just about any case. Wouldn't it instead be the specific text within that volume that is cited? So we write Q30 instead of IV, FG instead of II.