[manual-of-style] Why markup around e.g.?

[r12a]

Why is the markup used in <span class="not-en">e.g.</span> ? It doesn't appear to attract any special styling. And 'e.g.' is English.

[csarven]

Is <span lang="la">e.g.</span> intended?

[TallTed]

"e.g." isn't English. It stands for the Latin "exempli gratia".

Similarly, "i.e." isn't English. It stands for the Latin "id est".

Historically, both the full phrases and the abbreviations were italicized. In recent decades, the abbreviations have been used more frequently, and not italicized.

[r12a]

Thanks for the explanations. For the avoidance of doubt, i'm very much aware of the derivation of those abbreviations, but i'll note that over time words and phrases become absorbed into other languages. The question here is firstly what that class name is intended to signify, and then why it is called out. An answer to that question will help us then discuss whether or not it's appropriate. Hope that helps.

[TallTed]

@r12a — Can you add a link to an instance (or two, or three) of this markup? I haven't found anything that would style class="not-en". It seems likely that these span tags should just be removed.

[r12a]

Sure, here's one. It can be seen at https://www.w3.org/guide/manual-of-style/. There are 18 more:

<p>Since the status section does not change over time, express it in
terms that will be valid over time (<span class="not-en">e.g.</span>,
avoid the word "new"). Indicate the anticipated stability of the
document while recognizing that the future is unknown. Readers are
responsible for discovering the latest status information (<span class=
"not-en">e.g.</span>, by following the latest version link, or visiting
the W3C standards and drafts index [<cite><a href=
"[#ref-TR](view-source:https://www.w3.org/guide/manual-of-style/#ref-TR)">TR</a></cite>].</p>

I also note that, although this page has an HTML5 doctype, it has xml:lang attributes as well as lang attributes. That should probably be cleaned up, eg.

<p>Do not invent elements to replace natural language. For example, do
not use <code>&lt;must/&gt;</code> and a style sheet to render MUST.
Other languages may need grammatical agreement with the sentence's
subject, <span class="not-en">e.g.</span>, in French, MUST will become
<em xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">DOIT</em> if the subject is singular, or
<em xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">DOIVENT</em> if it is plural. Use standard
markup instead.</p>

[TallTed]

OK. In https://github.com/w3c/guide/blob/main/manual-of-style/index.html (the source from which https://www.w3.org/guide/manual-of-style/ is generated), I see (modulo some line breaks) --

• 18 instances of <span class="not-en">e.g.</span>
• 1 instance of <span class="not-en">i.e.</span>
• 1 instance ov <span class="not-en" xml:lang="la" lang="la">et</span>

I find no sign of not-en in the associated stylesheet, https://github.com/w3c/guide/blob/main/manual-of-style/style.css.

So, I think the answer to your question, "Why markup around e.g.?", is "Unknown," and I think that the class="not-en" spans should probably be deleted (but I don't see any harm that is or could be caused by leaving them in place). Possibly, a style should be defined and added to the stylesheet, for the class="not-en".