In a review of The Chicago Manual of Style, Louis Menand finds fault with the more flexible approach adopted for Internet and related citations:
…. the authors allow themselves plenty of wiggle room, quoting a passage from the 1906 edition: â€œRules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.â€ This is modest and becoming, but it is beside the point. The problem isnâ€™t that there are cases that fall outside the rules. The problem is that there is a rule for every case, and no style manual can hope to list them all. But we want the rules anyway. What we donâ€™t want to be told is â€œBe flexible,â€ or â€œYou have choices.â€ â€œChoiceâ€ is another of modern lifeâ€™s false friends. Too many choices is precisely what makes Word such a nightmare to use, and what makes a hell of, for example, shopping for orange juice: Original, Grovestand, Home Style, Low Acid, Orange Banana, Extra Calcium, PulpFree, Lotsa Pulp, and so on.
Menand’s ideal style manual “would be like the perfect map of the world: exactly coterminous with its subject, containing a rule for every word of every sentence.” (Thanks to Ed Page for the link.)