An op-ed in the NY Times takes the position that punctuation is, well, not like a rule or something.

That’s the point of punctuation: not to spin a web of arcane rules, but to remind us to write (and think) clearly. It’s obvious that force-feeding the rules of punctuation isn’t working. Therefore I suggest a more tolerant approach.
The question that readers and editors should ask is not whether the punctuation violates the rules, but whether the meaning is clear. Is anybody addled by the film title “Two Weeks Notice?” Have you ever seen “dont” without an apostrophe, and wondered what the author meant? Of course not.
The tension between rules and freedom is an ongoing one, and most folks would probably agree that the grey area between them is the best course, the media res. The problem is that it’s only that tension that keeps extremists on either end from carrying the day.
So while it’s true that …

Some day we may even regard isn’t (with an apostrophe) as quaint as to-day seems today.
… that shouldn’t mean that we should all start willy-nilly dropping apostrophies out of contractions. Because, frankly, then the question becomes, “What next?”
The thing is, while clarity of communication is always (one would hope) the ultimate goal, it’s also a fuzzy one. Punctuation (of which apostrophes are, perhaps, among the least meaningful) is there to provide structure toward clarity. While I agree that language (and punctuation) do evolve, that evolution should be as slow and painful as possible, lest we instead leap into a bold, punctuationless future, or one where it’s, like, do your own thing, man …

I’m not advocating punctuation anarchy. Punctuation that serves to eliminate confusion is as imperative today as ever. But as the language evolves we should put the most picayune punctuation rules out to pasture, the way we do with obsolete rules of grammar.
One man’s “picayune” is another man’s “critical to clarity and understanding.” I’m just saying we need to be careful.
One slight deviation between American and British English is that the Brits have taken to dropping the periods after abbreviations, especially in titles. So it’s “St Louis” and “Mr Smith” and so forth. That is, perhaps, not a bad idea, but such things probably make more sense done on a large, institutional basis (e.g., the NY Times changing its house style, and the country either following, gradually, in its path, or not) than in letting 300 million people decide for themselves. They will, of course, but societally such, yes, anarchy should probably be resisted rather than embraced.
Which all feels rather muddled to me, and not very much in keeping with my usual sense of liberty and freedom and personal choice and the like. Perhaps it’s because communication is one of those things that, by its nature, intertwines two or more people, so there is a responsibility on all folks’ parts to work from a common set of rules and guidelines.
Either that, or I’m just becoming a conservative old fuddy-duddy, bemoaning the good old days when only Capt. Kirk would ever split an infinitive …
(via Rantingprofs)