[rfc-i] Comments on draft-hildebrand-html-rfc-2012-07-07 and draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-03

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Mon Jul 30 18:57:55 PDT 2012

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM, "Martin J. Dürst"
<duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> I'm in agreement with most of what Tim said (except the "much hated" for
> XML2RFC), but I think requiring <p> inside <li> comes close to the current
> problem with <t>s in xml2rfc. It may be okay if this is done as a fixup, but
> not if it's required from the authors.

Based on personal experience, having <p> inside <li> also greatly
reduces your CSS complexity; if your formatting rules can assume that
all significant narrative is inside a <p>, that’s a good thing.  Plus,
it bothers me that if you have a multi-paragraph list item, you use
<p>s, but you can leave it out otherwise.

But, this is not a matter of life or death.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list