[rfc-i] feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01
dhc at dcrocker.net
Mon Mar 24 20:09:04 PDT 2014
On 3/24/2014 9:33 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> * When a sentence ended by a period is immediately followed by
>> > another sentence, there should be two blank spaces after the
>> > period.
>> >This is a rule that (IMHO) only makes sense for plain text renderings.
>> >It requires heuristics in the generator tools to detect line ends. We
>> >really should get rid of it.
> Its utility largely depends on the fonts used. I don't know of any font
> where two spaces versus one after a period causes difficulty in reading,
> whereas with some fonts it is helpful. If it does no harm, and some
> good, I would rather keep this rule.
(From other postings on this thread, I fear there might be some
confusion between having extra spacing in the canonical version, versus
having extra spaces in the 'published' version. I'm assuming that the
primary point of this thread concerns the latter.)
The rule was a good one, when we were generating RFCs in their text
format. Now, it's a problem.
Having two spaces after a period that does /not/ end a sentence can be
somehat distracting for the reader. Text that says Mr. Jones did or
did not do something, is an example. It's fine to have the extra
spacing after a sentence but the eye gets a little unhappy with stray
extra spacing as with the previous sentence.
If the extra spacing is to be added by software that converts from
canonical to the published form, then indeed the decision whether a
period is at the end of a sentence or represents something else requires
heuristics. And heuristics make errors.
For monospace fonts, the extra spacing after a sentence is somewhat
helpful. But I doubt there's real damage in eliminating the existing
More information about the rfc-interest