[rfc-i] Inconsistency about the Chicago Manual Of Style in draft-iab-styleguide-02.txt

Dave Thaler dthaler at microsoft.com
Mon Apr 14 22:11:20 PDT 2014

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of
> Ted Lemon
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 4:19 PM
> To: Barry Leiba
> Cc: RFC Interest; Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor); Paul Hoffman
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Inconsistency about the Chicago Manual Of Style in draft-
> iab-styleguide-02.txt
> On Apr 14, 2014, at 4:25 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba at computer.org> wrote:
> > Geez-Louise; I *like* the double space.
> The reason that the RFC style guide might disagree with Chicago on this is
> that we (historically) do fixed-width fonts, and Chicago is aimed more at
> typeset print, which looks better with monospacing because the monospace
> is likely an em, not an en.  Fixed-width font text looks terrible with single
> spacing.
> This is a moot point in the case of HTML output, since the HTML renderer
> decides how much space to set after the period, and no amount of ASCII 32
> embellishment will change that spacing.   So IMHO we should continue to
> double-space in fixed-width output, and let the typesetting engine about it
> in other types of output.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list