#239 Tite: encoding of lists underspecified; syntactic sugar?

Tite
open
Tite (11)
5
2014-12-07
2010-09-05
No

Tite gives little guidance on encoding lists that do not include labels and glosses -- that is, ordinary lists using bullets, numbers, or letters. It says to refer to the TEI Guidelines, but the Guidelines give @type='ordered' for both numbered and lettered lists. It seems uncharacteristic of Tite not to specify a way to distinguish these two different renderings. Perhaps @rend should be recommended?

Since Tite uses <b> and <i> as syntactic sugar to save keystrokes, perhaps the same should be done for <ol> and <ul>? We would just need to decide how these map to the values of list@type.

Discussion

  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2010-09-08
    • labels: 1223994 --> Tite
     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2010-09-13

    <ol> corresponds with <list type="ordered"> but still doesn't tell you whether the ordering is done with numbers or letters.@rend is probably the way to do it.
    <ul> corresponds with <list type="disordered">, obviously.
    How about inline lists like (a) this (b) that and (c) the other?
    However, I'm not sure what featureis being requested here.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2010-09-14

    This was less a specific request and more a reminder to myself (as Tite liason) to work this out further in consultation with Perry Trolard and Greg Spurlock whenever I can spur them into action. Thanks for the reminder about inline lists.

     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2011-03-20
    • assigned_to: nobody --> kshawkin
     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2011-03-20
    • milestone: --> Tite
     
  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2014-12-06

    Note that the P5 Guidelines have replaced list@type='ordered' with list@rend='numbered'. So at this point, the suggestion would be to introduce into Tite the following syntactic sugar:

    ol for list@type='numbered'
    ul for list@type='bulleted'

     
  • Martin Holmes

    Martin Holmes - 2014-12-07

    Wouldn't the syntactic sugar be:

    ol for list@rend='numbered'
    ul for list@rend='bulleted'

    (rather than @type)?

     
  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2014-12-07

    Ah, yes, that's what I meant to write!

     
  • Sebastian Rahtz

    Sebastian Rahtz - 2014-12-07

    i'd be inclined to let sleeping dogs lie with lists. if Tite has survived without shorthands for lists so far, its not a major problem?

     

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

JavaScript is required for this form.





No, thanks