[xml2rfc] 1.31 formatting nit

[elwynd at dial.pipex.com (Elwyn Davies)]

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Bill Fenner schrieb:
>>> 2) That being said, people want paragraph breaks in list items. We 
>>> really should fix the rfc2629 DTD in some way to allow this, so 
>>> people don't have to fall back to ugly hacks such as <vspace> (which 
>>> is presentational, not semantical markup).
>>
>> I think this is sensible to brainstorm about, since it's something that
>> has been asked for a lot.  Something like:
>>
>> <!ELEMENT list  (t+|lt+)>
>> <!ELEMENT lt    (t|list)+>
>> <!ATTLIST lt
>>           hangText    %ATEXT;            #IMPLIED>
>>
>> Single-paragraph lists could still use <list><t>... for backwards
>> compatability, new lists would be formatted with <lt>..</lt> wrappers
>> around each item:
>> <list><lt><t/><t/></lt><lt><t/></lt></list>?
>>
>> (A list should only be allowed to have t+ or lt+, not a mixture,
>>  to avoid confusion (always wrap or never wrap))
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
<lt> is a good idea.

The (always wrap or never wrap) requirement is less clear to me.  It is 
related to the confusion (and indignation) of my colleague who could not 
see why <list> should not be a child of <section>..

 From a semantic point of view a list may or may not be closely related 
with the text that precedes or follows it to the extent that it should 
either be in a separate element or embedded in the <t> containing the 
pre/post-amble.  If the list is really a separate semantic entity then 
having to embed it in another (otherwise empty) <t> seems to be the tool 
imposing on the user rather than allowing the user to do what looks natural.
(Think about what you would want if lists had collapse/expand 
functionality.)

Similarly with lists of lists - is the reduction in confusion.more than 
the loss of naturalness?

One view would be that actually everything in a section is a list, and 
<t> is just a special degenerate case.

/Elwyn