[rfc-i] Supporting both ease-of-entry and un-labeled list items in v3

Paul Kyzivat 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 
same end.

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.)

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Jim
>
>
>> -----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
>> v3
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>           <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.
>>
>> +1.
>>
>>> (And, is <t/> equivalent to <vspace blankLines='1'/> or <vspace
>>> blankLines='0'/>?)
>>
>> Since we have vspace, and since that's fairly self-explanatory (whereas
> <t/>
>> 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
> than
>> 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).
>>
>> Nico
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
>



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list