Follow-up Comment #3, bug #58500 (project groff): I think this passage warrants an additional response.
[comment #1 comment #1:] > I think we should liaise with the TeX community before proceeding along such an iconoclastic path. But it is groff's and TeX's defaults that are the outliers on this. (I didn't know till a quick google just now that TeX also defaults to wider sentence spacing.) As an academic exercise, it would be interesting to know TeX's reasoning. As a practical matter, it's irrelevant. The convention used by the rest of the world is clear; groff's and TeX's defaults do not align with it. > That community and ours are the only ones I trust to produce well-reasoned opinions in this field. Perhaps that's the core of our disagreement: I don't think it matters how well reasoned anyone's defense of wider sentence spacing is. You could give me 100 reasons why it's better, and even if I agree with 99 of them, it doesn't change today's industry standard. I certainly can't impugn TeX's typography, regardless what I think of its syntax. But trusting _only_ their opinion, while dismissing those of typographic experts like Bringhurst, the designers of commercial typesetting packages, and the publishing houses who use them, feels a bit like choosing your allies based on the answer you already know you want. (As a possibly interesting side note, if I understand http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/4726 correctly, TeX's default is a sentence space 33% wider than a word space, whereas groff's default is one 100% wider. So groff's double-wide space is already out of step with TeX's much subtler widening.) _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?58500> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
