Re: How do I include quotation marks in a TOC field code?

I think that's a tad sweeping. The commas belong inside the quotes for
speech in all cases (at least, that's the textbook approach); but outside if
the quoted item is something other than speech, as in this case.

The typography of punctuation is a whole different kettle of fish ... :)
but italicising the commas would be wrong in this case, because the italics
refer specifically to the word, not the list.






"Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbarnhill@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ei9PH8sIGHA.648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> FWIW, commas belong inside the quotes in the U.S., outside in the U.K. If
> you use italics, the commas should be italicized.
>
> --
> Suzanne S. Barnhill
> Microsoft MVP (Word)
> Words into Type
> Fairhope, Alabama USA
> Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
> Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup
> so
> all may benefit.
>
> "Lilli D" <LilliD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:A5E877D8-477A-4505-8F09-1CFAEB209B56@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Thanks. I like the italics idea. It's a simple fix that I hadn't thought
> of.
>>
>> "Jezebel" wrote:
>>
>> > I can't re-create your problem: the TOC entry works exactly as expected
> when
>> > I try it, with the entire text included. Personally, I think your text
> would
>> > be a more readable if you used italics, in which case the problem
> wouldn't
>> > arise, anyway. (And in this case, the commas belong outside the quotes,
>> > too.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Lilli D" <Lilli D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:D1EB9C17-5195-4C25-BFDB-369E924ACEE0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > In Word 2003, I am trying to create a TOC entry that includes
> quotation
>> > > marks. For example: "Relative pronouns: use of "that," "which,"
>> > > "who,"
> and
>> > > "whose"" The problem is that the TOC field code stops the TOC entry
>> > > at
> the
>> > > first quotation mark. Thus, the table of contents reads: "Relative
>> > > pronouns:
>> > > use of " Is there a way around this limitation?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>


.

Loading