[xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #38: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In Section 2.20, <dl>

henrik@levkowetz.com Mon, 01 October 2018 11:35 UTC

to: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org
from: henrik@levkowetz.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Message-Id: <E1g6wUN-0002BH-Et@durif.tools.ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 04:35:47 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc-dev/POMMey4sUe2L5obIYu-mSmmaKDs>
Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #38: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In Section 2.20, <dl>
Precedence: list

This captures an issue noted during implementation, also described in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation#section-3.1.3

Specification: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7991#section-2.20

---
In Section 2.20, <dl>

   The current specification says:

      "The "hanging" attribute defines whether or not the term appears on
      the same line as the definition.  hanging="true" indicates that the
      term is to the left of the definition, while hanging="false"
      indicates that the term will be on a separate line."

   This does not match established typographic terminology.  In typographic
   terminology, "hanging indent" describes the case where the indentation
   of the second and subsequent lines of a paragraph is greater than the
   indentation of the first line.  Whether the definition in a definition
   list starts on the first line or not has nothing to do with the presence
   of hanging indent; our definition lists will _always_ have hanging
   indent.

   The 'hanging' attribute also describes something different from what the
   term has been used to describe in the version 2 vocabulary.  This will
   be confusing to users.

   A more descriptive name for the attribute we're talking about would be
   'start-definition-on-first-line', but that's unwieldy.  Maybe
   'newline="false"' to start the definition on the first line, or
   something like 'definition-start="first"'?

   Recommendation:  Change this to a different term that is more
                    descriptive and does not use typographically incorrect
                    terminology.

   Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc still uses "hanging".
---

Regards,
	Henrik

---
This issue is tracked at:
   https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/38

Discussion should take place on this list.

[xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #38: Schema Issue, R… henrik