[rfc-i] Anchors on list paragraphs needs to be thought about

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Jan 9 23:41:20 PST 2014


On 2014-01-10 04:57, Jim Schaad wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman at vpnc.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 5:50 PM
>> To: Jim Schaad
>> Cc: RFC Interest
>> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Anchors on list paragraphs needs to be thought about
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf at augustcellars.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There is support for doing references to list paragraphs (i.e. the t
> node) in
>> the current code.  However it is not well thought out in terms of what is
>> should do.
>>>
>>> TCL will always use a number for the paragraph regardless of what style
> is
>> actually used for the list.  TCL will build a dotted list of numbers from
> the
>> base list item to the list item with the anchor on it.  Thus it would
> reference
>> Paragraph 2.3.4
>>>
>>> Python will always use a number for the paragraph regardless of what
>> style is acutally used for the list.  Python will only use the current
> list when
>> building the anchor reference.  Thus it would reference Paragraph 4.
>>>
>>> Items that need to be discussed.
>>>
>>> 1.        Should the reference value reflect the style, and in that case
> what is
>> the correct reference value to use for each of the styles.
>>> 2.       Should the reference value be built from the chain of list
> elements?
>>> 3.       Should it be possible to generate a reference that is a partial
> list of
>> the chain of elements
>>> 4.       Should the default string be something other than Paragraph
> XXXXX
>>
>> It's not clear what a reference to a bullet in a bulleted list (the most
>> common type of list) should say.
>
> There have been a number of times where I have had a style="numbers" list
> and then in the main text referred back to one or more steps.  By doing this
> using anchors rather than by hand it makes sure that the step number is
> correct.
>
> Jim
> ...

+1

We just need to get the details properly documented :-)



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list