I just found this here:
Finally, there remains the problem of whether to put other punctuation marks inside or outside the quotation marks. There are two schools of thought on this, which I shall call the logical view and the conventional view.
The logical view holds that the only punctuation marks which should be placed inside the quotation marks are those that form part of the quotation, while all others should be placed outside. The conventional view, in contrast, insists on placing most other punctuation marks inside a closing quote, regardless of whether they form part of the quotation. Here are two sentences punctuated according to the logical view:
“The only thing we have to fear”, said Franklin Roosevelt, “is fear itself.”
The Prime Minister condemned what he called “simple-minded solutions”.
And here they are punctuated according to the conventional view:
“The only thing we have to fear,” said Franklin Roosevelt, “is fear itself.”
The Prime Minister condemned what he called “simple-minded solutions.”
Note the placing of the comma after fear in the first example and of the final full stop in the second. These are not part of their quotations, and so the logical view places them outside the quote marks, while the conventional view places them inside, on the theory that a closing quote should always follow another punctuation mark.
Which view should we prefer? I certainly prefer the logical view, and, in a perfect world, I would simply advise you to stick to this view. However, it is a fact that very many people have been taught the conventional view and adhere to it rigorously. Many of these people occupy influential positions ‹ for example, quite a few of them are copy-editors for major publishers. Consequently, if you try to adhere to the logical view, you are likely to encounter a good deal of resistance. The linguist Geoff Pullum, a fervent advocate of the logical view, once got so angry at copy-editors who insisted on reshuffling his carefully placed punctuation that he wrote an article called `Punctuation and human freedom’ (Pullum 1984). Here is one of his examples, first with logical punctuation:
Shakespeare’s play Richard III contains the line “Now is the winter of our discontent”.
This is true. Now try it with conventional punctuation:
Shakespeare’s play Richard III contains the line “Now is the winter of our discontent.”
This is strictly false, since the line in question is only the first of two lines making up a complete sentence, and hence does not end in a full stop, as apparently suggested by the conventional punctuation:
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York.
The same point arises in the General Sedgwick example:
General Sedgwick’s last words to his worried staff were “Don’t worry, boys; they couldn’t hit an elephant at this dist‹”.
Here, putting the full stop inside the closing quotes, as required by the conventionalists, would produce an idiotic result, since the whole point of the quotation is that the lamented general didn’t live long enough to finish it.
You may follow your own preference in this matter, so long as you are consistent. If you opt for logical punctuation, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you are on the side of the angels, but you should also expect some grim opposition from the other side.
