[tei-council] list types and rends: bug 460

[Martin Holmes]

I take your point about the value "numbered", although a), b) c) is just 
a kind of numbering really (if it were labelling, then the order of the 
letters wouldn't matter).

On the point that the rest of the world uses the "ordered" vs 
"unordered" distinction, outside of HTML (which I think got this wrong, 
although the decision was made before CSS existed), what other standards 
use those terms? XSL:FO doesn't (it relies on fo:list-item-label, which 
can be a bullet or a number). ODF (on which I'm no expert, so correct me 
if I'm wrong) uses text:list-level-style-number> alongside 
text:list-level-style-bullet>.

On balance, I still prefer "numbered", but another possibility would be 
"enumerated" -- is that actually different, and if it is, would it be 
better?

I'm going to turn this into a formal proposal on the wiki; it's 
obviously not going into the next release, because the stylesheets 
obviously have to be ready at the same time as the Glines changes.

On the question of handling old values in the Stylesheets, I think we 
have to, at least for a while; people will scream instantly if @type 
values we've been recommending for many years suddenly don't work 
properly with a new release of the Stylesheets. This brings up the 
possibility of deprecation in the Stylesheets, of course.

Cheers,
Martin

On 13-12-21 09:49 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> On 20 Dec 2013, at 19:54, Martin Holmes <mholmes at uvic.ca> wrote:
>> 	Recommendation:
>>
>> 	Leave "gloss" as a suggested value for @type.
>>
> yes. for all its weirdness.
>
>> ..
>
>> 	Recommendations:
>>
>> 	Remove "simple" as a suggested value from @type, and make it a
>> suggested value on @rend.
>> 	Render it as list-style-type="none" (i.e. no bullets), so that it has a
>> function distinct from "bulleted".
>> 	Change usage in the Guidelines prose to rend="bulleted" where we
>> actually intend bullets.
>> 	Change examples of @type="simple" to @rend="simple”.
>
> Agreed. because people who have been using @type=“simple” for years
> to mean “unordered” can carry right on doing so. If Stylesheets doesn’t
> do what they expect, they never had any guarantees from there.
>
>>
>> "ordered": As we have discussed on the ticket and in meetings, "ordered"
>> and "unordered" are really meaningless; all lists are ordered and cannot
>> be otherwise. Neither are they types of list
> some danger here in flying in the face of the rest of the world, who
> use <ul> and <ol> happily. In most cases one would expect things like
> that to map to @type in TEI. But I accept your arguments
>
>> 	Recommendations:
>>
>> 	Remove "ordered" as a suggested value for @type.
>> 	Add "numbered" as a suggested value for @rend.
>
> hmm. I am less happy about that.  if, for example, you
> use a sequence like a), b). c), calling it “numbered” doesn’t
> really fit the bill. I’d actually keep @rend=“ordered”, simply
> cos the rest of the world does so.
>
>> 	Provide examples of the use of @style="list-style-type: [whatever]" to
>> show the range of different numbering options available through @style
>> with CSS.
> fine
>
>> 	Change all instances of @type="ordered" in the Guidelines to
>> @rend="numbered”.
> not entirely happy
>
>> 	Update processing to render list[@rend="numbered"] as HTML <ol> (and
>> PDF equivalent).
>> 	Rewrite all examples of list[@type="ordered"] in the Guidelines, along
>> with associated prose, to @rend="numbered" or to use @style.
> ok
>
>>
>> "bulleted"/"bullets": This is clearly a rendering feature, not a type of
>> list.
> again, “bullets” is very specific rendering. I have always disliked that.
> I wish there was another word… But I think I can’t fight it.
>>
>> 	Recommendations:
>> 	
>> 	Remove "bulleted" as a suggested value for @type.
>> 	Add "bulleted" as a suggested value for list/@rend.
>> 	Change all examples using @type="bullets" to @rend="bulleted".
>> 	Add processing for @rend="bulleted" to produce HTML <ul> and PDF
>> equivalent.
>> 	Add examples showing the use of @style with CSS for various bullet types.
> agreed, with sadness
>
>>
>> "specList": There is only a single example of this, in the FT chapter.
>> It looks odd, and I think it might be a survival from a previous
>> incarnation of the chapter, since it duplicates to some extent the
>> <specList> directly above it (although it does provide more detail). It
>> renders with no bullets or numbers.
>>
>> 	Recommendation:
>>
>> 	Look at the possibility of eliminating this bit of the Guidelines. If
>> it is retained, re-encode it with @rend="simple”.
> or @rend=‘specList’ presumably
>
>>
>> "inline": This only appears in one example, but it is clearly a
>> rendering feature (in CSS terms, it means "display: inline").
>>
>> 	Recommendations:
>>
>> 	Add "inline" as a suggested value for list/@rend.
>> 	Add processing for @rend="inline" to create inline lists in HTML and PDF.
> agreed
>
>>
>> "runon": This appears in examples in
>> <http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/CO.html#COLI>, in
>> conjunction with @type="ordered". It appears to be doing the same job as
>> "inline" above.
>>
>> 	Recommendations:
>>
>> 	Replace rend="runon" type="ordered" with rend="inline numbered".
>> 	Update preceding prose to clarify what "inline" means here.
>>
> fair enough.
>
> I am in two minds as to whether the Stylesheets should support the old @type values as well
> as the new recommended @rend values
> --
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Director (Research) of Academic IT
> University of Oxford IT Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>