Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail From: Dave Newsgroups: gnu.groff.bug Subject: [bug #58500] default value for second parameter to .ss should follow modern typographic convention Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 08:26:58 -0400 (EDT) Lines: 47 Approved: bug-groff@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <20200604-232342.sv93119.32587@savannah.gnu.org> <20200612-090824.sv108747.33568@savannah.gnu.org> <20200612-091146.sv108747.73079@savannah.gnu.org> <20200613-072658.sv93119.81045@savannah.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: usenet.stanford.edu 1592051220 30564 209.51.188.17 (13 Jun 2020 12:27:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: action@cs.stanford.edu To: "G. Branden Robinson" , Dave , bug-groff@gnu.org Envelope-to: bug-groff@gnu.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1001:sendmail.php X-Savane-Server: savannah.gnu.org:443 [2001:470:142::72] X-Savane-Project: groff X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 58500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0 X-Apparently-From: 2605:a601:ab42:5b00:d79a:70a3:b6a4:34bf (Savane authenticated user barx) In-Reply-To: <20200612-091146.sv108747.73079@savannah.gnu.org> X-BeenThere: bug-groff@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for the GNU version of nroff, troff et al" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Mailman-Original-Message-ID: <20200613-072658.sv93119.81045@savannah.gnu.org> X-Mailman-Original-References: <20200604-232342.sv93119.32587@savannah.gnu.org> <20200612-090824.sv108747.33568@savannah.gnu.org> <20200612-091146.sv108747.73079@savannah.gnu.org> Xref: csiph.com gnu.groff.bug:1875 Follow-up Comment #2, bug #58500 (project groff): [comment #1 comment #1:] > While I think you're right to characterize the growing consensus among professional writers who _use_ computerized typesetting systems but don't _develop_ them, I don't think groff should be bound by that consensus. That's not how I would characterize this consensus. I'm not looking at who is making the decisions, but at the decisions themselves. As of 2020, with very little exception, major publishers use the same spacing between words and sentences. We can't peer into those publishing houses and tell if those decisions were made by professional writers, software developers, or janitors. All we can do is look at the results, which tell us that major publishers today follow this practice. This makes it the current industry standard. You may hate it. I'm no fan of it myself. But no less a typographical authority than Robert Bringhurst endorses it in _The Elements of Typographic Style_. His opinion carries a weight that yours and mine don't. Pretty much every modern style manual agrees: there's an entire Wikipedia article documenting this consensus. (And given how many details these various style guides diverge on, the unanimity on this issue is remarkable.) It's hard to dismiss every major publisher and style guide as guilty of typographic ineptitude. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether the current standard arose from ignorance, or as a cost-saving measure, or as the result of a long-ago meeting of the Secret Cabal of Typesetters whose minutes we are not privy to. Even if you claim all these publishers and guides are "wrong," collectively they define the industry standard. "Wrong" is the new right. Groff's default sentence spacing is out of step with the industry standard, and that's a bug regardless how much you or I may wish the industry standard were something other than what it is. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/