cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/bsdinstall chapter.sgml

Hiroki Sato hrs at FreeBSD.org
Wed Oct 12 21:11:58 UTC 2011


Benedict Reuschling <bcr at FreeBSD.org> wrote
  in <4E95CA78.6040503 at FreeBSD.org>:

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all/attachments/20111012/fb1c2eb0/attachment.pgp


More information about the cvs-all mailing list