"Typographers could actually make good use of all those people who still insist on double-spacing. They could use a find-and-replace to turn those double spaces into custom spaces that provide a nice respite after ends of sentences. Whether it's actually double or 1.5 times or whatever would be a matter of taste, considered with the typeface, leading, etc. But one could argue that it looks better. Most people think it does. Regardless of what they don't notice about standard text, they obviously like how their typing comes out. Typographers could exploit this syntactical information to their advantage.
"Instead, they have created an elaborate myth about how people came to think wider spaces were appropriate (evil typewriters!), and they are the bearers of the one, true method of spacing -- which just happens to be the laziest method of spacing and the one that reduces publication costs the most."-- heraclitus, "Why two spaces after a period isn't wrong (or, the lies typographers tell about history)", 2011-11-01
[I am sorry that I had to undo the author's careful Unicode spacing and revert to HTML's default behaviour regarding whitespace in quoting this (as well as replacing the fancy apostrophes ad proper em-dash) to make sure my posting script wouldn't choke on it. Usually I don't consider such adjustments significant, but considering the topic and the author's educational examination of typographical history (and their own stated preference), it would've been nice to retain the author's formatting.]
[Note that the author's main point (long read but worth it if you have any opinion at all about the matter) is that neither convention is wrong even if one is ahistorical. And this is someone who looked at the history instead of swallong just-so stories.]