[rfc-i] List aesthetics and run-on numbering
elwynd at folly.org.uk
Tue Apr 22 07:54:35 PDT 2014
On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 07:08 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-04-22 05:25, Tony Hansen wrote:
> > ...
> > The other aspect of groupings that we currently have with the v2
> > processor is being able to specify the format of the grouped bullet,
> > such as a prefix and suffix to the numbering. For example, a number of
> > RFCs use a format of something like
> > Req. %d -
> > When combined with the v2 equivalent of names, this produces "bullets" of
> > Req. 1 -
> > Req. 2 -
> > Req. 3 -
> > etc.
> > This is not possible with the current v3 definition.
> > How important is this capability? (I personally feel that it is very
> > important for certain types of RFCs.)
> > ...
I also think it is important. The comments that started this thread
> I think it's important, but tricky to get right. (In the current vocab
> it mixes layout with content, and we should avoid that).
> Best regards, Julian
Yes, the v2 mechanism is a bit 'low level'. However, I don't see that
being able to specify the content of the list item label is layout. The
examples incorporate semantics and ordering. Indicating list grouping
or continuation is providing information about the content and that
should be allowed to control the content of the labels. Using this
information to indicate that the label format is carried forward from
the previous member of the group and (optionally) continuation of a
numbering sequence seems a legitimate content requirement.
Further it seems reasonable that we could ask the formatter to use this
information as a hint that the authors would like these lists laid out
in a consistent way where this a resaonable request. In particular,
making the indentation consistent across the component lists in a static
rendering such as one might print out can help to make a more readable
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest