I recently started work on a financial document that contains some interesting typographic situations. I'm curious what your opinions are on methods for handling them, and whether there's an accepted way in these cases, or whether they're just judgement calls.
I'm using small caps for acronyms, such as NYSE and NAV, but there's a proper name which is written 'InvestPLUS'. Now, assuming that the 'PLUS' is an acronym at the end of a proper name, would you set the name with UC & LC for 'Market' and SC for 'PLUS', or would you leave 'PLUS' in UC. (I can hear Bringhurst groaning and mumbling about "candy and drugs.")
The proper name S&P 500 set in body text. I used OsF to maintain the texture of the page, but is there a compelling argument to use LF to make S&P 500 set more like a unit? Or is this more needless logogram-ery in typography?
There's a term 'collateralized mortgage obligations', which is referred to as "CMO" in the copy. However, the writer pluralized the acronym at one point as "CMOs". When setting a pluralized acronym, would you use a LC 's' or a SC 's'? I used a LC 's', but it looks <i>very<i> close to the size of the SC letters in the acronym. Part of me thinks that the pluralizing is just incorrect writing.
A bond can be rated with figures such as B, or B+ or Ba or Ba1. If you're setting the rating Ba1 in body text, would you use a LF for the 1 or the OsF? The issue is that the 1 next to the 'a' becomes a bit confusing when it's an OsF, but the LF is, of course, more visually intrusive. Are there any rules for ratings?
For the initial versions of the document I just made visual and cognitive judgements and then used them consistently, since (I'm told) consistency in typography is more important that correctness used inconsistently. However, I'd really prefer both.
A related question: any recommendations for a style manual? The one I know of off the top of my head is The Chicago Manual of Style. Is this a safe bet?
PS: The text face I'm using is Whitman.