Re: [xml2rfc] assuming that period (.) ends a sentence is sometimes wrong

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 27 February 2021 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E4B3A1306 for <>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:40:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wzWkGnD639dd for <>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:40:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58CE93A1304 for <>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:40:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e9so5319632pjs.2 for <>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:40:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sZIpmyEUySSgE4syN1uB2nEv/Lp5BAbxylv2tV05aLw=; b=WvvkVnp2xYNO3+H2RsP2JH9XfJpnYaZefw69eTvmVk/kmkA8prkfeq42fESw1Ry797 PNH/+E4TLJv5/hi6XybL710C7wnaOvH1MxreA8SjiQ8CVo9odH64uq3vr2OuQy+r6yny hvD3M/NglkdXw4N3cPnBuLQXpgdW6sueFLAahZKMQVwh8K06VcG2iqCzeUkbMTC//gTS Bp1uCRVjviccFKdQ0qBXh3BHFyfcg0qnYTZHPCtZA3i8GYraU9wM8zzw3H9wJDy505fj B0k5UsDcA5jeCdVw61Es6MODdFDEqIIJIFXdPCosQJaZiXRCONfBQkTrLRljTghubrMv toOg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sZIpmyEUySSgE4syN1uB2nEv/Lp5BAbxylv2tV05aLw=; b=nqiRoqxgS0FzNYvyuH0ldI3Nv3X1QbBnI8E50AUQCD2kMzUV/XSHyK1sjM9MlfhPZ2 YGkpI7UxqMecOvJl8Pfm/jxmrWgGwiDNsjpTgsdeFhua9j4P9D10s9svP7cYm5+cHey3 1INEVQ0mdBQ8U1MZgBDZUTIld1Ah9cXNW7lrdNs8kDXaGNrIdNvSWQgq3R1bJklOl6k5 eZFSmAlow6FkBh8lhp+ySdVTGsqvd/owF9b3lJC8FOEX3T7KLUJfg3cUdJthSemNueQq zZzjNGvNgKC+E0un4ozi3EVv5b3E/fM2K+fzxodpUkV86xs16ncWBpLVQJzQ/IRUkUXT O9uQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533cNddCGBBdMeLUxjkcZmpyWdQhloloBhOQZgBJBzSCqPedq7G5 914/pao7tdLuYM35gcgmJtQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyV1U9FaFwdzeoC+HMiBO1yIt/R8Zet6Lce//fom8H3IC3d+KJISOCJl3sjNuRxbmhmWqfp8w==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9304:b029:e4:12f4:bdb0 with SMTP id bc4-20020a1709029304b02900e412f4bdb0mr8651501plb.55.1614454808666; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:40:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id y63sm5806117pfy.68.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:40:08 -0800 (PST)
To: John Levine <>,
References: <20210227191644.165F76F105E2@ary.qy>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 08:40:04 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210227191644.165F76F105E2@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] assuming that period (.) ends a sentence is sometimes wrong
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 19:40:11 -0000

On 28-Feb-21 08:16, John Levine wrote:
> In article <> you write:
>> That said, RFC 7322 has:
>>>    *  When a sentence ended by a period is immediately followed by
>>>       another sentence, there must be two blank spaces after the period.
>> (<>).
>> That text is gone in draft-flanagan-7322bis-00, dated March 2017. I'd
>> love to hear the current TRSE's position on that -- is this change going
>> to stay?
> I don't know why it went into 7322 

Inertia, I suspect.

> or who removed it in the draft or why.

Don't care who. Why? Because some previous round of this exact same discussion reached the conclusion that:
> Personally, I'm with you.  The extra space is an antique tradition from
> the days of manual typewriters and I don't see any reason to worry about it
> any more.  If you care about legibility, read the HTML version with those
> nice proportional typefaces.

So unless inertia rules the day, why don't we advance 7322bis and finally remove this pointless rule?