|
From: Adam C. <ad...@ch...> - 2002-09-14 07:32:30
|
On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 13:12:32 -0400 David Goodger
<go...@us...> wrote:
> > Definition lists do fit *conceptually*, but unfortunately not with
> > regard to presentation. When you specify contact information or
> > similar data, you almost always do it like this::
> >
> > Name: Adam Chodorowski
> > Address: The Street 42
> > 11111 The City
> > Country: Sweden
> > Phone: +46-8-1111111
>
> Actually, I would write it like this::
>
> Adam Chodorowski
> The Street 42
> 11111 The City
> Sweden
> phone +46-8-1111111
>
> Most of the labels are redundant; people know how to read addresses
> from context.
That's true, as long as you only have name and address I guess. But when you
start tacking on things like phone, mobile, email, ..., you have to prefix
them with something (atleast phone and mobile, I guess email would be clear
from the context :)).
> > Having definition lists is *not* intuitive for the reader
> ...
> > nobody excepts contact information to be presented that way.
>
> I wouldn't expect contact information to be presented the "field list"
> way either. Are conventions so different in Sweden? Do you really
> need to label everything? (But this is avoiding the real issue.)
Well, no, I guess we don't label addresses normally since everyone knows what
is what from the context. But when I also add phone number and such, I usually
put labels on everything (to be consistent).
[...]
> I'm beginning to like this change. If we drop the notion of "field
> arguments", field lists become simpler and fully generic. Then I'd
> drop my objection to their use as a generic document construct. Any
> objections to this change?
No. :)
---
Adam Chodorowski <ad...@ch...>
Of course everyone knows that vim is the best text editor in the world.
Anyone who tells you differently is either wrong, lying, or criminally
insane. (Or an emacs user, in which case they are wrong, lying and
criminally insane).
-- CmdrTaco / SlashDot
|