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

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 1:26 PM
> To: Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, New
> Section 2.20.4, "indent" Attribute
> 
> n 2018-10-07 22:15, Jim Schaad wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 8:18 AM
> >> To: Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #39: Schema Issue, RFC
> >> 7991, New Section 2.20.4, "indent" Attribute
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > My worry is that this means that trying to get the value right in css
> > is going to based on if the current paragraph is using a mono-space
> > font (n * em) or a proportional font ( n / 2 * em). For some places a
> > mono-space font is going to be more readable and you are now getting
> > different displays.
> 
> Ah.  Ok, got you.  What about this, then:
> 
> ---
> 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
>    in text/plain rendering, and en-space units when using renderings
>    with richer typographic support, such as html or pdf.  One en-space is
>    assumed to be the length of 0.5 em-space in CSS units.
> ---

It took me twice to figure out what was different, but yes I think that this works just fine.  

Jim

> 
> >
> > I understand what you are saying, I am just not too sure if it is
> > going to be the correct answer in all cases.
> 
> Ack.
> 
> 	Henrik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Jim
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 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-impleme
> >> >> >>> nta
> >> >> >>> tio
> >> >> >>> 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?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
> >