[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal/Request for Comments: Formally extending package Descriptions to handle bulleted lists.

On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 06:38:59PM -0500, sean finney <seanius@debian.org> was heard to say:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 03:09:52PM -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> >   The attached text is a first draft of a proposed extension to the
> > Description field to explicitly handle bulleted lists.  The extended
> wow! that's quite a document.  i'm glad to see that people are
> focusing on the Really Big problems facing debian today.
> okay, that was a bit punchy... sorry i couldn't help it :)
> seriously though, i think the proposal is quite well written.  the only
> critique i have is that i think it's maybe going a little too far out
> there to talk about nested lists, as i can't imagine them being at all
> practical in what's supposed to be a short, informative description of
> a package.

  That's a fair point, but I felt that there wasn't any reason to
artificially restrict the sorts of lists that could be handled when
nested lists can be dealt with in such a natural fashion.  There are at
least a few cases where I can imagine two-level lists being useful,
and they seem to exist in the wild (see samhain and xml-core, for instance).

  One interesting question that I can see is whether to treat a
*word-wrapped* line that starts with a bullet character as a bulleted
item.  Doing so would make several more natural ways of expressing lists
work, especially nested lists -- the example in my document is actually
wrong!  On the other hand, doing this at the top-level would mean that
conforming descriptions wouldn't degrade cleanly, while doing it only for
sub-lists is inelegant.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: