Re: Consistent formating long descriptions as input data (Was: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)

[Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:36:14PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> ti, 2009-04-21 kello 11:27 +0200, Andreas Tille kirjoitti:
> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > 
> > > Anticipating a potential objection: nested lists do work without
> > > needing "blank" lines to separate nesting levels; I've just tried that
> > > out.
> > 
> > ... provided that lists are formated properly in the first place (keyword:
> > broken spacings).  That's why I would like to give advises for the
> > spacing directly.
> 
> "Properly" here should mean "anything that the markdown language says is
> OK". The markdown language is remarkably relaxed about indentation. It
> can handle it fine if one list is indented by two space, and other by
> three. There seems to be no need for Debian to impose stricter
> definitions.

I for one like visual consistency even when reading package descriptions
via apt-cache etc.

So having at least a uniform indentation level (and, if possibly, a
uniform itemize symbol, but this seems to be heavily opposed against)
*as a recommended* way of writing long descriptions would be desirable.

I don't think it warrants filing bugs, though.


cheers,

Michael