Editing Typographical syntax

{{Short description|Aspect of typography}}
{{Refimprove|date=November 2006}}
{{distinguish|Cartographic syntax}}
'''Typographical syntax''', also known as '''orthotypography''', is the aspect of [[typography]]<!-- what is "microtypography"? Sounds like a neologism for "typography". One changed it to "typography". To include the term "microtypography" the editor who put it in must come up with a reference to a reliable source that states "microtypography" is the most common term for what is universally called "typography". In other words "microtypography" is not acceptable. WP policy specifies articles must use the most common terminology and nomenclature. --> that defines the meaning and rightful usage of [[Glyph|typographic sign]]s, notably [[punctuation|punctuation marks]], and elements of [[Comprehensive layout|layout]] such as [[justification (typesetting)|flush margins]] and [[Indentation (typesetting)|indentation]].<ref>{{cite book |last1= Díaz-Cintas |first1=Jorge |last2=Remael |first2=Aline |year=2014 |title=Audiovisual Translation, Subtitling |publisher=Routledge |page=102 |isbn=9781317639886}}</ref><ref>Szczyrbak, Magdalena; Tereszkiewicz, Anna, eds. (2020). ''[https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9913350466602121 Languages in contact and contrast: a festschrift for Professor Elżbieta Mańczak-Wohlfeld on the occasion of her 70th birthday]'' (1st ed.). Kraków: [[Jagiellonian University Press]]. pp. 381-390. {{ISBN|978-83-233-4917-4}}. {{OCLC|1255222119}}.</ref> 

Orthotypographic rules vary broadly from [[language]] to language, from country to country, and even from [[publisher]] to publisher.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}} As such, they are more often described as "[[Convention (norm)|conventions]]".

While some of those conventions have ease of understanding as a justification – for instance, specifying that low punctuation ([[comma]]s, [[full stop]]s, and [[ellipsis|ellipses]]) must be in the same [[typeface]], weight, and style as the preceding text – many are probably [[arbitrary]].{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}}<!-- "probably" arbitrary? Readers cannot be expected to rely on expressions like that. Is it arbitrary or not, and what's the source of this idea please? -->

The rules dealing with [[quotation mark]]s are a good example of this: which ones to use and how to nest them, how much [[wikt:whitespace|whitespace]] to leave on both sides, and when to integrate them with other punctuation marks.

Each major publisher maintains a list of orthotypographic rules that they apply as part of their [[Style guide|house style]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=House style |url=https://academic.oup.com/pages/for-authors/books/the-book-publishing-process/writing-and-content-preparation/house-style |access-date=2025-03-24 |website=[[Oxford Academic]] |language=en}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[Typographical error]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Typography]]
[[Category:Proofreading]]

* Rodríguez González F, Castañón Rodríguez J. Graphic and Orthotypographic Aspects of Anglicisms in the Field of Sports.
{{Typ-stub}}