Improve usage consistency for "and (or)" vs "and/or".

[skynavga]

Use a single editorial style to express "and (or)", i.e., replace instances of "and/or" with "and (or)" or "or (and)" as appropriate.

[nigelmegitt]

I prefer the "and/or" form where it is needed, and it is used more frequently, but on reviewing the spec for this specific phrase, there are several occurrences where I'm not convinced it is needed at all, and an "or" would work just as well.

It would also be helpful in the document conventions section to describe what this usage specifically means, i.e.:

and/or

The expression "and/or" is used in this specification, between two operands, to mean either the first operand or the second operand or both operands. For example, the phrase "If begin and/or end attributes are specified..." can be rewritten "If either the begin attribute or the end attribute or both the begin and end attributes are specified..." with the same meaning.

[skynavga]

This is an editorial matter, and the editor prefers "and (or)" or "or (and)". And, NO, we do not need to explain how English prose works.

[nigelmegitt]

I searched for this in the Oxford English Dictionary. To my surprise, it does actually define "and/or" :

and/or (also and or): a formula denoting that the items joined by it can be taken either together or as alternatives.

but it does not define "and (or)". The examples are mosty legal or technical.

[skynavga]

Since the OED does not list phrases (but rather words), it would not list the phrase "and (or)" or others like it. In checking back to TTML1 1e, I see we have had both usages present since the beginning, on which I failed to impose editorial consistency. At this juncture, I want to impose such consistency, and, as the editor, I am choosing the "and (or)" formulation.

[nigelmegitt]

On the contrary, it does indeed list "and/or" and "and or" neither of which is a single word.

[skynavga]

I'm afraid you don't understand lexicography. A dictionary (unless otherwise qualified), enumerates lexemes, i.e., lexical words. It does not list phrases (a sequence of lexemes).

The OED authors have determined that "and/or" and "and or" are lexical words, and listed them. On the other hand, they have not determined that "and (or)" is a lexeme, which makes it a phrase consisting of the two lexemes "and" and "or".

[nigelmegitt]

My knowledge aside, @skynavga, if it is unclear what "and (or)" means to someone and they cannot look it up in a dictionary, then we need to explain it. "and/or" evidently can be looked up and has an established meaning.

[skynavga]

We certainly do not need to explain it as we do not have to explain how the English language works. And phrases can be looked up on your favorite search engine.

[skynavga]

Here is an interesting discussion on this matter: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/205011/the-correct-way-to-write-and-or-together-in-a-sentence.

My problem as an editor is that '/' is not standard punctuation in prose, while parenthesis are. Further, the alternative "and or", which is listed in the dictionary, looks too much like a typo, while "and (or)" does not.

The underlying problem, pointed out by the linked page above, is distinguishing between inclusive or ((A or B) or (A and B)) and exclusive or (either A or B, but not A and B). In some (but not all) places in the text, it is sometimes important to be more clear that the former (inclusive) sense applies. In other cases, the context is sufficient.

As Editor, we presently have an inconsistency, the fix for which is an Editorial decision. I am the Editor.

[skynavga]

In order to move forward on this, I have added an explanation of "and (or)" and "either...or..." to the conventions section (see 49b023b), and have also removed use of "either (or both)" construct.