[rfc-i] Proposal for better lists in v3
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Mon Feb 10 10:18:53 PST 2014
On Feb 9, 2014, at 11:35 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> You chose to remove my:
> 5) Text content in attributes (hangText attribute) is bad.
Correct. I retained the requirements that were about making lists more intuitive, not requirements that were about XML conventions.
>> <list> is changed to have each list item is represented by a <li> element. The content model for <li> is the same as that of <annotation> with the addtion of <t>, namely: text, <b>, <cref>, <eref>, <i>, <iref>, <t>, <tt>, and <xref>. Inside of an <li> element, a <t> elements causes a break but without triggering another label. The <li> element has optional attributes only where needed.
> I'd rephrase that as either inline content or a limited set of block-level elements (just t); but either one or the other.
Is that proposal about making lists more intuitive, or XML conventions? It feels like the latter to me.
>> - Add a new style of "dictionary", the <li> element has an optional attribute of "definition".
> I believe this makes the model worse because it adds more special cases (a new style-specific attribute).
What is wrong with style-specific attributes? Errors in using them can be caught trivially by the processor.
>> - Remove the "empty" style (to be replaced by a new <blockquote> entity).
> I'd rather keep it; I've seen lists using this style. I just don't want to see it abused to generate things that are not lists. If everything that needs indentation now switches to blockquote instead of list no matter whether it was a quote we have made things worse
That's a fair point. Both <list style="empty"> and the proposed <blockquote> are just really format requests. Having said that, do we really want to support lists where the list elements can't be differentiated? If so, keeping <list style="empty"> may be the better option and there would be no need for <blockquote>.
More information about the rfc-interest