Benedict Reuschling <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:
bc> I propose that once we decide to use just one single space in the bc> future, that new documents which are added to the doc tree should use bc> this new convention, but old documents should not be changed. This bc> reduces the amount of work for translators immensely. PRs that are being bc> filed with sweeping doc patches to correct this in old documents should bc> also be closed with a reference to the policy. bc> bc> Your thoughts on this? While I have personally used the double-spacing for a long time, in my understanding, innovations in publishing made the double-spacing obsolete and most of English style guides currently opt for the single-spacing for published work. I do not remember the reason why this rule is included in our FDP Primer, but I think it is for readability when editing a source file with monospaced fonts. It is not for the rendered result obviously as many already pointed out it. Thus, whether keeping the double-spacing policy or not is a matter of our preference. We need consistency on that, however. I have no strong (objective) opinion on sticking to the current policy, but the fact that we already have a lot of sentences with the double-spacing are tempting me into not changing it. I think neither converting the existing documents to single-spaced nor adopting a policy of "single-spaced for new docs, keeping old documents double-spaced" sounds a reasonable option to us. -- Hiroki
pgpsv71N2UGOh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
