[ruby-talk:00726] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?)

Hi,

> In message "[ruby-talk:00723] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?)"
>     on 99/08/21, Toshiro Kuwabara <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> |No, all right. I understand your proposal.
> |But, many browser (WWW User Agent) show DL 
> |like this (case of W3-mode of Emacs):
> |
> |>|    ItemListElement
> |>|
> |>|      not-ordered List. Item starts "*".
> 
> |Look! baseline of Term-part is more left than baseline of Definition-part
> |is.
> |So, I suppose that it is not good to define baseline according to Term-part.
> 
> Yep, but still, I think, it's OK to choose baseline according to the
> headline.  It's handy.  HTML, for example, is to describe the
> structure, not appearance.  RD is also a way to describe the
> structure, but in more plain-text like fashion.  So, we should use
> everything which is not bother document appearance (e.g. indentation)
> to denote the structure for RD.
> 
>                                                 matz.

Well, but I'll sometimes want to write DescList like following example to
emphasize Term-part of it.

:Ruby
   Object-Oriented Scripting Language. More neat and simple than Perl, and
   more easy and simple than Python.
:Perl
   Widely used Scripting Language. But sometimes people make script 
   complicated when they write it in Perl.

Term-part and Definition-part have not same baseline. But I suppose, sometimes
this rule  will more helpful (at least) for me to grasp its structure.

---
Tosh