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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Am 27.02.2021 um 19:14 schrieb Julian Reschke:
> Am 27.02.2021 um 19:01 schrieb Nico Williams:
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 06:40:53PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Am 27.02.2021 um 18:30 schrieb Nico Williams:
>>>> Is that XML or xml2rfc forcing that?
>>>
>>> People rely on whitespace being insignificant inside <t> and similar
>>> elements. For instance, for indentation.
>>
>> But what makes whitespace in <t> insignificant?  If it's xml2rfc, then
>> that can be changed.
>
> Whitespace is insignificant everywhere except in <artwork> and <sourecode>.
>
> People rely on this. Think indentation.
>
>>>>> The third answer is: stop trying to. Optimizing the plain text output
>>>>> format really really is not important.
>>>>
>>>> Not acceptable.
>>>
>>> I just opened a random ancient RFC I'm familiar with (2068), and it
>>> hasn't two spaces after a sentence ending. At least not consistently.
>>
>> So?
>
> So it apparently has been "acceptable" in the past.
>
>>> So exactly when became this a "requirement"? And who determines what
>>> "acceptable" for plain text output?
>>
>> It's very much a thing in typography to follow sentence-ending periods
>> with a wide space precisely to distinguish from non-sentence-ending
>> periods.
>
> If you search for this on the web, you'll find lots of discussions about
> this topic, and I don't thing there's universal agreement on that. Fpr
> instance, see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_spacing>.
>
> In any case: now that there are official HTML versions, the
> "readability" of the text variant IMHO is not a big concern anymore. If
> you want something that is easy to read, take the HTML or PDF versions.
>
> Best regards, Julian

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.

(<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-3.2>).

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?

Best regards, Julian