I suspect the growing case of author-to-press.
Berk/burk/burke all appear to be variants of the same word- I’m not sure if there is actually a ‘correct’ version.
It was how I was taught to do it in grammar school. But I agree, it is ugly, and I avoid it.
The rule I was taught when I learned to punctuate at school in Britain was exactly the same as the American rule: i.e., normally use double quotes, but single ones for quotes within quotes. It is true that some British published books do seem to use the opposite rule (which, when I think about it, actually does make a bit more sense, as it saves ink and extra pen strokes), but I doubt that it is done universally.
Interesting. In all the books published in the UK that I’ve ever read, it seemed as though “normally use single quotes, but double ones for quotes within quotes” was the standard. This includes the EFL textbooks that I’ve taught from.
It may be an American thing, but traditionally, apostrophe-s was the common convention for making possessives of names ending in sibilants, often including sibilants like “x” and “xe.” Note that the Chicago Manual of Style didn’t start recommending apostrophe-s until its latest edition, and AP Style also drops the final s.
Note that in this book on grammar from 1891, published in Westminster states the following:
The bare apostrophe after a sibilant is generally regarded as an old-fashioned construction.
Or here is another version of the rule from 1889:
So, it depends on what you mean by “fairly recent innovation.” Like I said, the trend, as I see it, is to move away from such exception-ridden usages of forming possessives from singular proper nouns ending ending in sibilants to just a “one-size-fits-all” solution of appending apostrophe-s. That’s what I mean by saying the bare apostrophe is old-fashioned.
This contradicts what I heard, but I wholeheartedly agree with it. I would never write “Felix’” instead of “Felix’s,” etc., etc., when the final s is clearly pronounced in normal speech.
FWIW, the EFL textbooks I taught from (all published in the UK in the 1990s) frequently used the “bare apostrophe” construction for things like “St James’ Park.”
This is true – it seems to have been an innovation in British book publishing in the second half of the 20th century. It is only (or mainly, he hastily qualifies, before someone pops ups with other examples) in books, though. Newspapers, magazines and correspondence usually use double quotes, as do older British-published books.
Heh! Self inflicted and not published, I had a similar typo playing in a text MUD. My character was a dwarf and an NPC official, Kragen, in the dwarf union had to be bumped off to make room for a PC to take his place. My character was called to a meeting and on the table were a bunch of buttons and Kragen’s distinctive union badge, all badly tarnished. “Why are we looking at Kragen’s old stuff?” I asked.
“It was found in a pile of dragon dung,” was the reply.
“Shat!?” (I’d missed the W.) “Um, what!?” I quickly sent.
After a two minute pause where undoubtedly everyone was laughing at their keyboards came, “You had it right the first time.”
I’ll take strange, ugly apostrophes any day over the recent practice of eliminating all hyphens. I can’t count the number of times that, while proofreading, I went to look up words such as “pronative,” “quasireal,” “preufology,” or “semiriot,” only to find that some “helpful” copy-editor had knocked out the clarifying hyphen that the author had included.
This is, in fact, strictly a practice of punctilious copy-editing; authors include those hyphens about 99% of the time. I’ve reached the point where I’ll stop reading a book that’s edited that way.
A friend of mine used to work for a major Swedish newspaper. One day she was writing a notice about something that had happened in a place called Fittja. However, her fingers slipped and she omitted one letter, which made it come out as if (moved to an English language setting) there had been a place called Chunt. I think you can imagine the result. She commented afterwards that it had been read by some three or four editors and a typesetter and none of them had seen it.
I once saw a full-page Macy’s ad in the newspaper, showing just the torso of a buff male model in a polo shirt. The tiny copy near the middle read, “Pique knit polo shit, $29.”
I was horrified to come across “wa-la!” for “voila” in a dog training book.
Maybe that’s how the dogs pronounce it…? 
A memorable example of a “We’ll remember to remove our little joke before it goes to print” disaster is this one featuring comedian Richard Lewis.
What a difference a J makes.
And in which I was pleased to learn that the proper name for it in Swedish is “slida.”
A few times, it’s called an “avalanche”.
One of Chelsea Quinn Yarbro’s St. Germain books (I believe the one set in Russia), is riddled with typos. She even misspells one of the main characters’ names wrong at one point. And she has a character in one book who gets a mention in another book, with a different spelling of her name.
Thing is, dictionaries are out-of-date very very quickly - they are by nature snapshots of a language, with all the ephemerality that implies. If you look and listen for it (or if it grates on you), you will notice more uses of “disinterested” as a synonym of “uninterested” than “impartial”. I notice, believe me.
Your cite links to a definition of “interested”, by the way.