Carsten Kunze <carsten.ku...@arcor.de> wrote: |"James K. Lowden" <jklow...@schemamania.org> wrote: |> It is not incorrect. Typographical convention has varied over time and |> treatment of the colon along with it. So, "correct" is hard to pin |> down. |> |> I was taught 500 moons ago that a colon may be followed by one or two |> spaces depending on purpose. Examples: |> |> 1. There is only one thing to fear: fear itself. |> 2. Proceed as follows: First, assume a can opener. | |Also that is new to me.... | |> The troff behavior would seem to support that notion. If the |> succeeding clause is independent, put it on a different line and let |> troff treat it as end-of-sentence. If it's not, leave it in the |> running text and let troff treat as end-of-word. | |Ok, thanks! | |> P.S. What is the German practice? | |In German one space is used between words and after . ! ? : ,
As stated by "Duden" in "Guidelines for typesetting". (On the other hand my last Duden [before the reform, from 1996] is itself typeset very badly with inter-word spaces to become frightened. So much even «French spacing» won't heal it.) |That "French spacing" can be configured with the second argument \ |of the .ss request. Like Tadziu said, having an opportunity to be more specific, on a per-letter base, would be something to play with. --steffen
