Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
- Ability to recognize and render the following logical entities, in
decreasing order of importance:
+ unordered lists
+ ordered lists
I would think these are the guts of this proposal. Or else what
are we discussing here?
In this thread it was mentioned that ordered lists are not really needed.
Despite this opinion they are actually *used* and thus there seems to be
Another thing what actually is used are description lists (which are
IMHO needed more than orderes lists) but if we at least get the two
above working there is a big win.
+ strong emphasis
+ definition lists
+ hypertext links
+ underlines, and strike throughs
I don't think they are needed.
Why not? If rendering a description in a manner that makes it
easier to read is the goal, I fail to see why emphasis and strong
emphasis is a bad idea (think of text-to-speech mechanisms). This is
not just opinions we are discussing here, we should be looking at use
cases for marking up a textual description.
As Peter Pentchev wrote in his mail I think what is not needed is
"underlines, and strike throughs" - but I would not forcibly restrict
the use if the lib we decide to use provides this feature.