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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Apr 14 23:26:47 PDT 2014

On 2014-04-15 06:59, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> +1.
> Do we need a <sentence/> (or <s/>) element to distinguish ambiguities
> w.r.t. periods followed by whitespace?

No, we don't. There are already workarounds using nbsp.

That being said: please by all means get rid of this.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list