[rfc-i] Supporting both ease-of-entry and un-labeled list items in v3
ietf at augustcellars.com
Fri Feb 14 10:29:29 PST 2014
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.
> -----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
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu>
> >>>>> <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.
> > (And, is <t/> equivalent to <vspace blankLines='1'/> or <vspace
> > blankLines='0'/>?)
> Since we have vspace, and since that's fairly self-explanatory (whereas
> 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
> 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).
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest