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: Runbook vs. run book, and why? From:"Murrell, Thomas" <TMurrell -at- alldata -dot- net> To:TECHWR-L <TECHWR-L -at- LISTS -dot- RAYCOMM -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 6 Apr 2000 08:00:12 -0400
Regarding whether to use "runbook" or "run book."
This is one of the many areas where the writer or writing department has to
make a decision based on principles of English usage and the needs and
expectations of the audience for the documentation in question. A case can
be made either way. One of the characteristics of technical documentation
is that we are constantly dealing with new terms and old terms used in new
and creative ways. Only when they get written down do these terms begin to
standardize.
As writers, you make a decision based on the best information you have and
go with it. From my perspective, that's part of the writer's job. The
nature of the world we write in is such that we're always dealing with these
new constructions.
FWIW, I would go with two words: "run book."
Tom Murrell
> ----------
> From: Walker, Cheryl L[SMTP:cheryl -dot- l -dot- walker -at- intel -dot- com]
>
> My team is creating a runbook for the first time, and we're not sure if
> "runbook" is one word or two. I searched the archives of this list and
> found
> a couple of opinions, but no one gave a reason why. (Heck, if all we have
> to
> go on is opinions, my team already has plenty of those!)
>
