[pmwiki-users] RFC: Core candidate offerings
john.rankin at affinity.co.nz
Fri Mar 31 22:09:18 CST 2006
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.
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 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 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.
More information about the pmwiki-users