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: punctuation and procedure titles... From:Dick Margulis <margulis -at- fiam -dot- net> Date:Thu, 09 Mar 2000 06:12:12 -0500
First rule: pick one and stay with it. This is the one that nearly
everyone can agree with.
Second rule (eloquently expressed by Mark Baker a year or so ago): avoid
double marking. As you have already set off the instruction list
typographically (paragraph break, numbers, possibly indentation or
vertical space), you do not need the further decoration of a colon. If
you were writing the instructions as a solid paragraph (look at the back
of a Publishers Clearing House entry form for an example), you would
need the colon. In your layout, though, it is not _needed_ (although it
isn't hurting much).
Nonetheless, the first rule still applies.
Dick
PS: I doubt the two people you asked were actually "grammarians" For an
interesting history lesson, look up the word.
Angela Pollak wrote:
>
> Do you punctuate procedural titles with a colon? For example, which of the
> following would you say is correct:
>
> To <fry an egg>:
> 1. blah blah.
> 2. blah blah blah.
>
> To <fry an egg>
> 1. blah blah.
> 2. blah blah blah.
>
> And what is your reasoning?
