IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Sun, 07 October 2018 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D38E1292AD for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 13:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V0LygXQlWRlH for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 13:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7E13124D68 for <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 13:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 13:20:26 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 13:20:26 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
CC: XML Developer List <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, New Section 2.20.4, "indent" Attribute
Thread-Index: AQHUXnsuD//yaBAStUWXTDZMD0CuoQ==
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2018 20:20:26 +0000
Message-ID: <735A937F-1464-464C-908F-2A107D981364@icann.org>
References: <E1g6wUz-0002Cp-91@durif.tools.ietf.org> <d1acab8a-6807-5840-50e4-b96d698849dc@gmx.de> <a69fe5d2-8f76-be02-0f9d-c0e926c0b2d2@levkowetz.com> <d70281e8-fb0a-fbe8-62f6-7498d95eaf3d@levkowetz.com> <055101d45e4f$eab33f30$c019bd90$@augustcellars.com> <bd96436d-d64d-2945-7ea7-7313a0270317@levkowetz.com>
In-Reply-To: <bd96436d-d64d-2945-7ea7-7313a0270317@levkowetz.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FFCCFE11-E34F-4E0E-8A9D-F2F4599BD8A0"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc-dev/AvtkiiCWm13hyC5Let57ij_EPaU>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [Ext] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, New Section 2.20.4, "indent" Attribute
X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." <xml2rfc-dev.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xml2rfc-dev>, <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev>, <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2018 20:20:32 -0000

On Oct 7, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> wrote:
> 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.

This makes sense, but the reason I proposed using the em unit earlier is that em is defined in CSS, but (I'm pretty sure) en is not. This would make the HTML much easier to render directly, I think.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email