>I saw a troubling item in this morning's NY TIMES in Peter Lewis' column.
>He was providing an internet address (it was where to get Netscape
>Navigator) and it was written this way:
>
> info {at} mcom.com
>
>I was struck. Where is the cute little _@_?
>
>Is this simply a mistake or is the TIMES trying to create a new net
>syntax and use more paper to boot---5 characters instead of 1---or an I
>just behind the time?
>
The "{at}" is probably a typesetter command that should have been processed
into an '@'; my guess is someone forgot the sentinel character that would
have produced the proper result.
R.
>He was providing an internet address (it was where to get Netscape
>Navigator) and it was written this way:
>
> info {at} mcom.com
>
>I was struck. Where is the cute little _@_?
>
>Is this simply a mistake or is the TIMES trying to create a new net
>syntax and use more paper to boot---5 characters instead of 1---or an I
>just behind the time?
>
The "{at}" is probably a typesetter command that should have been processed
into an '@'; my guess is someone forgot the sentinel character that would
have produced the proper result.
R.