[rfc-i] Structure of <li> in v3
pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Sun Feb 16 14:36:59 PST 2014
On 2/16/14 5:17 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> Why are 'hangtext' and 'term' attributes of <li> rather than contained elements?
> That was a design decision that is being discussed. In that proposal, it made it easy to create the list items. In a different proposal, the list item takes two elements (and is thus more remembering and typing for the author) but a possibly-clearer content model.
I realize there is a backward compatibility problem for 'hangtext'.
But (as is often commented on here) it is easily solved with a
conversion tool. Or both could be supported.
Re ease of use I think it is just number of characters typed:
The advantage, in addition to a clearer content model, is that one can
embed other formatting elements.
Also, while the formatting differs between "hanging" and "dictionary"
lists, there isn't a lot of conceptual difference between the 'hangtext'
and 'term' element/attributes. I wonder if a common element could be
used for both. (E.g., 'subject'.)
Another advantage to that would be that you could switch a list between
"hanging" and "dictionary" styles with a single change.
More information about the rfc-interest