[rfc-i] Supporting both ease-of-entry and un-labeled list items in v3
pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Fri Feb 14 11:06:55 PST 2014
On 2/14/14 1:29 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
> I for one would more or less like to get rid of all of the reasons for using
> vspace. I find it very confusing about what it is supposed to be doing
> because it does not follow what I consider to be logical structure.
Me too. In my question I was only trying to understand one perverted
usage in terms of another one. :-)
If <artwork> is allowed where <t> is, then it can be used to achieve the
Is there anything equivalent to <vspace/>? (No blank lines, so it's just
a line break without paragraph spacing.)
(But maybe the places where that is needed are themselves bad usage.)
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org
> [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-
>> editor.org] On Behalf Of Nico Williams
>> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 12:50 PM
>> To: Paul Kyzivat
>> Cc: RFC Interest
>> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Supporting both ease-of-entry and un-labeled list
> items in
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu>
>>>>>>> <li>This is the second element with a bullet.
>>>>>>> <t/>This is part of the second element,
>>>>>>> but it does not have a bullet</li>
>>> While legal, it's ugly! It is more or less like the <vspace> hack.
>>> (And, is <t/> equivalent to <vspace blankLines='1'/> or <vspace
>> Since we have vspace, and since that's fairly self-explanatory (whereas
>> isn't), I'd rather just not allow <t/>.
>>> Certainly doesn't seem like the preferred way to accomplish the end.
>> Right, I'd rather allow mixing text nodes and <t> than this. But more
>> that, I'd rather say that if you will use <t> in <li>, then you mustn't
> mix in text
>> nodes in <li>, but you get the choice of not using <t> in single-paragraph
>> <li>s. That was one of the proposals (Julian's IIRC).
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest