Just a repost of this old gem from the OcUK Forum:
The “bracket system”, or “bracketing system” (as named by myself).
One of the major hindrances (I believe) of communication (in both verbal, and written forms) is the ambiguity of the content. (How can one understand a text [for example] if it is ambiguous?).
I have developed (and implemented) a system (the “bracket system”, or “bracketing system” [as named by myself]) which can help to combat this (thus bringing much more efficient means of communication).
I have found (generally through communication on Internet forums [but also in verbal communication {in increased proportion (it seems)}]) that there can be many problems if one does not include detail in communication. If one does not have detail in a communication, it is then possible for a piece of text (for example) to be misunderstood (and thus cause some form of argument [or incorrect discussion {which decreases efficiency}]).
The problem one has to solve (to combat this issue [or attempt to combat it]) is developing a humanly readable way to contain detail. This already exists (written text [in normal form]). I have found (through experience) that this is a rather inefficient method (for the reader) to communicate. Some information is vitally important to the reader (in order that they understand the communication [a text {for example}]), and other information is not as important to the reader (if they plan on reading the information [and not necessarily making any analytical points upon it]).
One can group data in order to judge how important it is to the reader (in terms of the aforementioned actions [in other terms, one must ensure that there is a category {or group} for data that it essential, a category {or group} for data that is less essential, and so on.]). Groups are useful in this sense (I believe) as one can easily handle a large text (as a set of groups), and format accordingly.
It is a good idea to use some form of separator which does not imply a specific reading method (in other terms, using a comma [as opposed to a “bracket”] would be a bad idea as it implies that one should read the text which immediately succeeds it [thus negating the increased efficiency possible with such a system {as the “bracket system”, or “bracketing system” (as named by myself)}]).
The use of “brackets” (I find) is the best method. It encapsulates (so to speak) the text in a manner which does not imply a specific method of reading. (It is noteworthy [perhaps imperative {at this point}] that the reading of “brackets” should be changed after the reading of this text. One is expected to grasp the concept that the brackets are optional for people [in some cases]).
The choice of “brackets” has been made such that efficiency is (hopefully) increased in the writer. Text which is important to the reader (in other terms, text that has a value of importance to the reader which is above the threshold value [in the opinion of the writer] of importance for it to be mandatory [in a sense] to read) is placed as normal text would be (in other terms, without “brackets”). Text which is the next most important (in other terms, falls into the second group of importance) will be placed in the “()” “brackets”. This choice was made as people tend to use these “brackets” in normal text, and due to the greater probability of the second importance-level of text being used, than the third (for example), it seems logical to use these “brackets”.
Text which can be placed into the third group of importance are placed into the “[]” “brackets”. This is because if one compares it to the “{}” “brackets” (explained later in this text), one can see that when one types these (or, in fact, writes them), it is a much easier task. This means that they (the “[]” “brackets”) are used for the third group of text, because it has a greater probability of occurring that the fourth group (for example).
The fourth group of text (rather self-evidently, uses the “{}” “brackets”). (One should repeat the “([{}])” thereafter [for further levels]).
The idea behind the “bracket system”, or “bracketing system” (as named by myself) is not necessarily for every reader to read all of the text. If one has a lot of time, (and possibly wants to comment upon the text [in an analytical manner {for example}]), one should read all the text. If one does not have the time in which to read the whole text, (and possibly [therefore], does not have the time to comment upon the text), one should simply read the up to the necessary level of “brackets” (such that time is used efficiently [and the basic meaning of the text is understood]).
A person who has not the time to read the text entirely, should not comment upon it (until they have read all the detail).
This can solve the problem of arguments occurring due to misunderstanding of text (for example, [there are other problems that this solves {I cite arguments for simplicity of explanation}]). If a person has access to the extra detail, this person does not have to ask for it, or assume the writer did not include it through ignorance (for example), which would cause an argument (or unnecessary debate).
The “brackets” could be treated (by a user who intends to read the text entirely) like commas (in other terms, they can attribute the same implied reading style [as commas] to the “brackets”). It is not useful (as previously mentioned) for the writer to replace the “brackets” with commas though, as this negates the possible increase in efficiency for the reader.
Angus Higgins
