Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Any script should be able to take the top 4 symbols currently
used, and be able to detect them. I think *, +, - and o cover most
packages, and the scripts in question can be readily expanded. All
kinds of markup languages already do something similar. (markdown,
Emacs org-mode, mediawiki, etc)
Perhaps you missed the point that it is not only the very character
which is used but also the broken spacing which prevents scripts from
detecting levels of itemizing list.
Yes, we have more than one level itemizings in our descriptions (see
my initial posting. Detecting these would need either a defined
character or a defined spacing (IMHO an 'and' would be better than
a non-exclusive 'or' here).
I find the descriptions on packages.d.o just fine right now.
IMHO it is no argument that a specific person is happy with the layout
everybody else is. If a text has a certain logic it should to be supported
by the means a certain output style has. HTML can express a list and
so it should if we want to express lists.
Having sad that, I would not be averse to specifying that leading
white space and *, +, and - would be acceptable as bullet marks (I
thought specifying which mark at which level was overspecification).
So you would be in favour of specifying only the amount of white space
to define a level? If this might be accepted as a rough consensus it
is at least helpful to enable tools detecting what they need to detect.
Even if my esthetical feeling goes beyond this I can accept this. But
you also specified three characters (*, +, and -) so do you want to
restrict the acceptable set yourself (for instance not accept 'o')?