[Doc-SIG] Re: field-list-table better idea than list-table

[Felix Wiemann]

David Goodger wrote:

> David Priest wrote:
>
>> IMO, too wordy.  The numbers don't add any structure to the
>> endeavour. At best, make them optional; I can see how they'd be handy
>> in an immense table, if only for the (human) reader's convienence.
>
> The human reader's (and writer's) convenience is the whole point.

I agree that numbers are rather useless.  But in case they are really
needed, one could also use fields (':1:', ':2:' etc.); no need for an
extra syntax.

>> Mostly what I want to mention here, though, is that the above list
>> could  also be written as
>>
>>     .. list-table::
>>
>>         * Treat
>>         * Albatross!
>>         * Gannet!
>>         * Crunchy Frog!
>>
>>         * Quantity
>>         * 299
>>         * 199
>>         * 1499
>>
>>         * Description
>>         * On a stick!
>>         * On a stick!
>>         * If we took the bones out...
>
> Note, however, that the above is a single list of 12 items.  The blank
> lines are not significant to the markup.  You'd have to specify how
> many columns or rows to use.

Specifying the number of rows or columns is bad.  Better have something
like this:

- * Treat
  * Albatross!
  * Gannet!
  * Crunchy Frog!

- * Quantity
  * 299
etc.

-- 
http://www.ososo.de/