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

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

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.
---

> 
> 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-implementa
>> >> >>> 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?
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
> 
> 
>