[Doc-SIG] Re: lists & block quotes

Paul Moore gustav@morpheus.demon.co.uk
Fri, 26 Oct 2001 20:02:00 +0100

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:25:38 -0400, David Goodger
<goodger@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

>Ah. You seem to see lists as "belonging" to the referring paragraph. =
>one interpretation, perfectly valid. Representing that idea properly and
>completely makes for tricky content models and processing though.

Exactly. When I write lists, they are usually preceded by "lead-in"
text, so viewing the list as attached to the preceding paragraph seems
exactly right. But I take your point that it's tricky to model properly.
And your implication that there is an alternative interpretation, with
lists as independent entities, explains where my ideas and yours are
clashing. I'll try to start thinking differently about it, and see where
that takes me.

>> I'm focussing on the fact that reST should be readable in its raw =
>> as well as after processing. Maybe that's not the best view to take, =
>> I'm not sure how often reST will be read unprocessed.
>Are you implying that reStructuredText *will* or *will not* be read much=
>its unprocessed form? If the latter,

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm implying that reStructuredText *will* be read
in its raw form quite a lot. At the very least, the *author* will spend
most of his time reading the raw form he's just typed... In raw form,
lists aren't indented unless you type them that way. So my
interpretation of list structure results in me tending to type things
wrongly (or at least, in a way which gives the wrong document

>It's a balancing act. Can't please everybody all of the time. This is =
>area where the balance has been properly struck though, I think.

Agreed. Both on the fact that it's a balancing act, and on the fact that
you've hit the right balance - now that I understand your logic.

Thanks for following this through with me.