[xml2rfc] DTD modifications for multi-paragraph lists

[fenner at research.att.com (Bill Fenner)]

[Belatedly changing the Subject:]

Elwyn Davies wrote:
>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.

My intent was to reduce the possibility of confusion of
what adding a new element would do.  Imagine

<list>
 <lt>
  <t> Lorem ipsum blah blah </t>
  <t> Fee fie foe fum </t>
 </lt>
  <t> I indented this one wrong because I used vi </t>
  <t> and I expect this to be a new paragraph but it's a new item
      so I am outraged that xml always does the wrong thing </t>
</list>

Perhaps I'm overthinking this problem and the limitation isn't
appropriate.

  Bill
>From julian.reschke at gmx.de  Wed Aug 30 16:25:04 2006
From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)
Date: Wed Aug 30 06:25:06 2006
Subject: [xml2rfc] DTD modifications for multi-paragraph lists
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Bill Fenner schrieb:
> My intent was to reduce the possibility of confusion of
> what adding a new element would do.  Imagine
> 
> <list>
>  <lt>
>   <t> Lorem ipsum blah blah </t>
>   <t> Fee fie foe fum </t>
>  </lt>
>   <t> I indented this one wrong because I used vi </t>
>   <t> and I expect this to be a new paragraph but it's a new item
>       so I am outraged that xml always does the wrong thing </t>
> </list>
> 
> Perhaps I'm overthinking this problem and the limitation isn't
> appropriate.

I think as implementor I definitively prefer the strict approach you 
have proposed.

Best regards, Julian