[rfc-i] v3: <tindent> feedback

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sun Apr 13 09:32:23 PDT 2014


On Apr 13, 2014, at 9:20 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

>>> The content model needs to contain block-level elements (the same is true for <blockquote>, btw).
>> 
>> How would this make sense from a formatting perspective? In specific, what would expect
>> 
>> <tindent>
>> Here is a sentence.
>> <t>
>> Here is another sentence.
>> </t>
>> Here is a third sentence.
>> </tindent>
>> 
>> to render as?
> 
> It would be invalid.

<t> is a block-level element. You said "The content model needs to contain block-level elements". Can you be more specific about what you meant for the elements that need to be able to be contained?

>> Given that <tindent> and <blockquote> mess with the margins, and margins are extremely important visual cues, it seems safer to not let them enclose block-level items whose indentation also give cues.
> 
> Such as? Example?

I gave an example above. Another would be

<tindent>
Here is a sentence.
<ul>
<li>Here is a bullet item.</li>
</ul>
Here is another sentence.
</tindent>

Should the bullet in that item align with the left margin, or the margin of the <tinident>? A strong argument can be made for both cases.

>>> Maybe it's worth looking at <http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/aside.html>.
>> 
>> Seen. Can you say what part of that description you think is relevant here? It could be that "<tindent> should be like an aside", or something else.
> 
> I believe we should have the equivalent of <aside>, with the same type of content model, and even the same name.

We could do that, sure. I have heard no such suggestion before now. The places where I remember seeing indentation abuse have been for emphasis of importance, not for paragraphs that were side comments. If others want <aside>, that's easy to add.

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list