[pmwiki-users] RFC: Core candidate offerings

[John Rankin]

On Saturday, 1 April 2006 3:11 PM, Allister Jenks <arj at zkarj.co.nz> wrote:
>
>On 01 Apr 2006 14:14:51 +1200, John Rankin <john.rankin at affinity.co.nz> wrote:
> On Saturday, 1 April 2006 1:35 PM, Allister Jenks <arj at zkarj.co.nz> wrote:
>>Patrick, I can't agree that 'blank lines do not mean
>>"paragraph", they mean "vertical space", which is usually and
>>exactly what the author intended them to mean' because there is
>>currently no other way to create *any* visual gap between two
>>lines of text - no way to create a new paragraph without also
>>creating vertical space.
>
>No, Patrick's right -- this is how blank lines are currently
>interpreted, but the space is implemented using an empty <p>.
>
>I agree that's how they're interpreted.  I do not agree that
>vertical space is the *intent* of the authors.  I disagree
>because there is no distinction between paragraph spacing and
>vertical space.  No matter which the author is intending, they
>only have one choice.
>
<snip>
To summarise (correct me if I'm wrong)...

Authors have a choice of spacing for lists. 

    * item 1

    * item 2
    * item 3

It's proposed that paragraphs would work the same way:

    A paragraph.

    A paragraph spaced from the previous one.
    "some markup"A paragraph not spaced from the previous one.

The alternative proposal is a blank line=paragraph approach:

    A paragraph.

    A paragraph with default space from the previous one.

    %block some style%A paragraph differently spaced from the previous one.

    A paragraph with default space again.

Both approaches have pluses and minuses. 

The alternative proposal would eliminate <p class='vspace'></p> between 
consecutive <p> tags (although not between spaced list items) and use css
to control default <p> spacing.

At this stage, my vote goes to the alternative -- it seems tidier all round
and requires no new markup.
-- 
JR
--
John Rankin