[xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, New Section 2.20.4, "indent" Attribute
henrik@levkowetz.com Mon, 01 October 2018 11:36 UTC
Return-Path: <henrik@levkowetz.com>
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 52268130DFA for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 04:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_MANY_HDRS_LCASE=0.01, 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 zPM66zJ4pD1r for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 04:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from durif.tools.ietf.org (durif.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::3d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B6A7120072 for <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 04:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:40376 helo=durif.tools.ietf.org) by durif.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <henrik@levkowetz.com>) id 1g6wUz-0002Cp-91 for xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 04:36:25 -0700
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: <E1g6wUz-0002Cp-91@durif.tools.ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 04:36:25 -0700
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on durif.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc-dev/V4A2mMTLF1UU-FL_pJW1F1sSU4I>
Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] 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: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 11:36:28 -0000
This captures an issue noted during implementation, also described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation#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. --- Regards, Henrik --- This issue is tracked at: https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/39 Discussion should take place on this list.
- [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issue, R… henrik
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issu… Julian Reschke
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issu… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issu… Julian Reschke
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issu… Jim Schaad
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issu… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issu… Jim Schaad
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [Ext] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schem… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issu… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issu… Jim Schaad
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issu… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [Ext] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schem… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [Ext] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schem… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [Ext] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schem… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issu… Jim Schaad
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issu… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issu… Henrik Levkowetz