I think the web is still a mutable landscape, and any Manual of Style would have to be a constantly-updated wiki to have any hope of being current.
But is it mutating because there is no standard yet, or mutating because there is need?
I think THIS generation (say, from 21-41) isn't comfortable enough with the technology to accept it in non-web situations. Older folks are a toss-up as to if they're net-savvy at all or not. The younger folks use SMS texting and AIM chat for large portions of their textual communication, and will probably be more open to seeing it outside of "traditional" venues in the future.
I'm talking about appropriation of certain "web" textual things for places where there are lacks in standard english, not wholesale web lingo. The only reason I am ever tempted to use anything "web-speak" in formal writing is because "standard english" doesn't quite hold the meaning I want it to.
As it is, however, there is and will probably be for at least the foreseeable future a divide between any type of group vernacular and Standard American English. SAE is still taught in schools as "correct" English and the business realm still/will expect to see SAE in communication of all types. I think this is a good thing. SAE is the "Trade Tongue" of English. Whether you speak Black English Vernacular, L337, txtr spk, etc, everybody will be taught SAE in the schools and will thus be able to come together. (In a perfect world ... we could get into where and why it isn't perfect, but).
Well, of course. I'm talking more of osmosis of choice terms/things from web English into common language. This sort of thing only happens when people, usually writers, start doing it and it catches on. IE, two decades ago "email" didn't exist as a term. And for a while, it was a toss-up between "e-mail" and "email". Now the latter has finally won.
For myself, seeing web-language tags outside of the web, in an attempt to communicate that isn't meant to be humor or research, makes the user appear ignorant of the SAE "standard" that the rest of us are supposed to cleave to.
I agree when it's obvious a person is doing it wholesale, and not picking and choosing a particular term. IE, "RU Redy?" in a school paper.
Same with emoticons or action tags. In my early chat days we used *action* to denote action, some groups use ::action::, some (action) ... so there isn't even a standard for emotive step-outs.
This came about because online communities, like real world communities, spawn their own dialect.
In the circles I travel in, ::action:: denotes a long action, whereas *action* is more of a short-action. Like, *snorts* vs. ::runs far far away:: . I've never seen (action), and <action> has fallen out of use due to HTML.
Maybe we should do a wiki of web writing "standards". It'd be an interesting project...
Myself, if I were a hiring manager, I would roundfile a resume that came across my desk with emoticons or action tags of any type. In fact, I'm wary of casual voice in a resume. It might work for advertising or new technology type work, but if you get anybody older than about 36 reading it, that might be grounds for roundfiling as well. The semi-casual tone would probably go over better in the cover letter. But that may just be me.
Just FYI, by "resume" I meant the cover letter portion.
Another FYI: I've had excellent results being chatty and inventive in my cover letter. I agree that conservative companies would probably ignore it or can it, but that just weeds out the companys I probably don't want to work for.
Then again--this would be a poor tactic for someone who didn't know how to pull it off. I'm basically using my writing skills when I do it. It's just another story to me, albeit my own story rather than that of a fictional character.
But my resume tactics are somewhat off-topic, heh...I just mentioned it originally because that's what I was working on when this question came up in my head.
I have a thoery that emoticons will become a new form of punctuation withing th enext two hundred years or so. Because really, there's only so much you can do with an exclamation point and an interrobang.
The problem I have with them is that they don't play well with normal punctuation because they're made of punctuation themselves. I like them, they really fill a lacking niche, but try using parathenses with them and it messes things up. So I tend to sacrifice the emoticon when I am using the parenths. (sp, I can't spell this word!)
