[rfc-i] Wider space after sentence-ending periods, yes or no?

George, Wes wesley.george at twcable.com
Fri Apr 12 05:51:55 PDT 2013

We should remove any systematic handling of periods, period.

As I commented in my review of the style guide late last year:

"The draft references CMOS as the primary guideline for technical publishing standards for style and grammar. However, in section 3.2 it contradicts guidance from CMOS by requiring the use of 2 spaces after a period, with no justification for doing so. This appears to be a matter of pure editorial preference, and without some real justification, I propose that this requirement be eliminated, or that we simply require that the document is internally consistent, either using or not using the double space throughout. That is, for those who are so used to putting two spaces after a period that it is essentially muscle memory for them, and their document has been submitted in that format there's no reason to stop doing so, but there is no justification for wasting RSE staffer time adding or removing them to adhere to one standard. I look at this as something that is similar to the choice to allow both American and British English rather than enforcing one over the other.

Citation: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/OneSpaceorTwo.html?old=OneSpaceorTwo03.html
There is a much longer diatribe on the matter here, which includes a reference to MLA's agreement that two spaces are unnecessary. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html

Wes George

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-interest-
> bounces at rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Nico Williams
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:58 AM
> To: RFC Interest
> Subject: [rfc-i] Wider space after sentence-ending periods, yes or no?
> See subject.  See also
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/115 and ensuing
> thread on the xml2rfc list.
> (I'm for wider/two spaces after sentence-ending periods, but
> *obviously* will do without.)
> Nico
> --
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list