Anonymous user
Talk:Commatizing numbers: Difference between revisions
m
→Layout - non breakinging space: changed spelling of "source" to "sources".
m (→Table of contents: answered where the TOC is, ... or isn't.) |
m (→Layout - non breakinging space: changed spelling of "source" to "sources".) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 45:
FYI A non breaking space NBSP has total no meaning if it is surrounded by normal (breaking) spaces. More then one space makes the layout ugly and is not an common practice. There are more elegant ways to do so. Think how it will look in an other environment, browser etc.
Cheers --[[User:Siskus|Siskus]] ([[User talk:Siskus|talk]]) 06:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
: NBSP has a meaning: (one use is) it introduces a true blank that is non-compressible (multiple blanks or superfluous blanks are normally condensed to a single blank). A double blank at sentence end and before/after certain clauses and around highlighted words aren't ugly and serve to make the text more readable and/or identifiable --- the whole purpose is to make the sentence or text clearer. Whether or not there are more elegant ways to do so, it ''is'' the method that I use. It doesn't matter what method is used, as long as the end product (the text) has the number of blanks that I intended to be viewed. It is a common practice in composing text to have a double blank after a the end of a sentence, but it isn't universally followed. Some editors use a full blank + ½ blank. I don't know of another way to specify double blanks at sentence end (on Rosetta Code), but I know it isn't accomplished by removing the nbsp HTML keyword. I use the nbsp keyword to make the text easy to read and understand, that's the whole purpose of composing sentences and text. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 07:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
: There is a pretty good Wikipedia entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_spacing Sentence spacing] which does a pretty good explanation on the pros and cons of the number of blanks at end-of-sentence. More and more digital sources (Wiki for one) are apparently leaning to a one-blank sentence end, but as the Wiki article states, the few recent direct studies produced inconclusive results. My belief is that double blanks at end-of-sentence helps readability and understanding (especially when used with highlighted text), and in no way makes it ugly. I'm in favor of anything that makes it easier to understand or read. A double-blank sentence end is a cheap thing to implement. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 07:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
== Table of contents ==
| |||