Snowspinner wrote:
Does Britannica also have separate articles on Encyclopedia Britannica, Brokhaus Encyclopedia, Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica, Etymologiae, Bibliotheke, Cyclopaedia, or Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, Encyclopedie, Pseudodoxia Epidemica, Lexicon technicum, or, for that matter, Wikipedia? Because I bet if you count all of those (And probably a few more), we've got more than EB on the subject, just broken into multiple articles. Which may well be a flaw on our part.
I would say not in the least, because we're primarily writing for the Web. 32 kilobytes (which used to be a hard technical limit but I still think is a very good *stylistic* limit) is 6000 words, which is a LOT of text to read on a screen. It's really quite a lot even if you print it (about ten or so pages). Anything longer than 32k really needs some attention to what can possibly be spun out.
- d.
On Oct 24, 2005, at 12:06 PM, David Gerard wrote:
I would say not in the least, because we're primarily writing for the Web. 32 kilobytes (which used to be a hard technical limit but I still think is a very good *stylistic* limit) is 6000 words, which is a LOT of text to read on a screen. It's really quite a lot even if you print it (about ten or so pages). Anything longer than 32k really needs some attention to what can possibly be spun out.
On the other hand, I've seen many an article that starts spinning out stuff well before it's sensible - mysteriously, it's the "criticism of" sections that always are the first to go. Wonder why that could be.
-Snowspinner