Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, New Section 2.20.4, "indent" Attribute

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jim,

On 2018-10-07 17:10, Jim Schaad wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xml2rfc-dev <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Henrik
>> Levkowetz
>> Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 7:14 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, New
>> Section 2.20.4, "indent" Attribute
>> 
>> I propose closing this ticket with the following resolution:
>> 
>> Add an attribute "indent" to <dl>, signifying the character indentation in
>> monospace rendering, and the indentation measured in en-space [1] units in
>> other renderings.
>> 
>> If there are no objections to the resolution by EOB Monday, I'll close the ticket.
>> 
>> With respect to document text, I propose the following new text under Section
>> 2.20. <dl>:
>> 
>> ---
>> 2.20.4.  "indent" Attribute
>> 
>>    Indicates the indentation to be used for the second and following
>>    lines of item rendering (the first line starts with the term, and
>>    is not indented).  The indentation is to be interpreted as characters
>>    for monospace renderings, and en-space units when using proportional
>>    fonts.  One en-space is assumed to be the length of 0.5 em-space in
>>    CSS units.
> 
> I think it would be fine just to use em rather than en. Also I don't
> think that the text needs to be written as different between
> monospace and proportional fonts. The width of an em is going to be
> font specific and is equal to a character width for monospace. If you
> don't do the 0.5 but just use em to start with then everything is
> consistant.

The reason I expressed this in en-space is that as a rule of thumb, the
average character width in a proportional font is 1 en.  If we apply the
indent figure as number of em-spaces, the visual impression will be a
much larger indentation when using proportional fonts than for monospaced
fonts.


Best regards,

	Henrik


> 
> Jim
> 
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_(typography)
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> 	Henrik
>> 
>> 
>> On 2018-10-01 14:39, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> > Hi Julian,
>> >
>> > On 2018-10-01 14:09, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> >> On 10/1/2018 1:36 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> >>> This captures an issue noted during implementation, also described
>> >>> in
>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementatio
>> >>> n#section-3.1.4
>> >>>
>> >>> ---
>> >>> New Section 2.20.4, "indent" Attribute
>> >>>
>> >>>     The deprecation of the "hangIndent" attribute on <list> leaves no
>> >>>     opportunity to control the size of the hanging indent.  In some
>> >>>     definition lists, it is desirable to have a wide indentation, in order
>> >>>     to clearly show the terms, in other cases it is more important to allow
>> >>>     for a larger text volume than the width of the terms would allow.
>> >>>
>> >>>     Recommendation:  Add an "indent" attribute on <dl> to control the size
>> >>>                      of the hanging indent.
>> >>>
>> >>>     Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc does not support the
>> >>>                      attribute, but has all the underlying functions needed
>> >>>                      to apply such an attribute.  Internally, an indentation
>> >>>                      is calculated based on length of the <dt> text and the
>> >>>                      settings of some of the other attributes.
>> >>> ---
>> >>> ...
>> >>
>> >> I agree that this would be useful - however we'll need to define it
>> >> in a way that works well with non-monospaced fonts.
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> > What about specifying indentation as a number that would indicate
>> > characters in monospaced output, and en-space otherwise?
>> 
> 
> 
>