[rfc-i] <list> brainstorming
ietf at augustcellars.com
Tue Jan 28 14:13:17 PST 2014
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org
[mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-
> editor.org] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:10 AM
> To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: [rfc-i] <list> brainstorming
> I just spent some time working on
> and here are a few thoughts:
> 1) We need list items that span paragraphs (there's the <lt> proposal out
> there that was discussed on xml2rfc some time ago).
> 2) Lists are block elements, not flow elements. They should be usable
> outside <t>.
I am not clear what you mean by block and flow elements. These are not
necessarily terms that I am familiar with and therefore I probably think of
them in different terms than you do.
I tend to think in very different terms than what you do. To me a block
element is one that is more or less fixed in size and layout, while a flow
element is one that can be re-shaped on the flow during layout to change how
things look. Thus to me a figure is a block but a paragraph (and thus a
list) is a flow element. This means that I am not sure what this means.
There may be some real benefits to making list elements belong inside of t
elements. The first thing it does is simplify the ability to reference an
object (i.e. list item #3 in paragraph 4) as all of the things that are
going to be at the top level are going to be either paragraphs or something
that is very definitely not a paragraph (i.e. a figure).
> 3) Abusing lists to generate indented paragraphs is awful. If we want
> indented paragraphs, then those should have their own element.
I don't agree with this. To me hanging list is in fact a list and, as
such, is an atomic thing that I can think about.
> 4) Limited control over labels. For "letters" and "numbers" for nested
> rely on heuristics that are not well documented and implemented. We also
> do not support different numbering styles (HTML lists for instance support
> roman numerals...). For "symbols" there's an undocumented PI that some
> processors support. We should clean this up, stealing the good parts from
> 5) Text content in attributes (hangText attribute) is bad.
This is as good of a heuristic as using something like <b/> following to
identify that this is hanging text. I don't have a purity argument here
that I am willing to agree to.
> 6) Mixing label style with content (format attribute) is bad.
I don't understand what you are saying here
> 7) Missing list style "dictionary" (similar to "hanging", but with the
> always starting on a new line).
> Best regards, Julian
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest