[ruby-talk:00728] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?)

Hi,

[...]
> And again I was not able to made clear what exactly I mean! Please be
> patient with me... :-]

Oh! that's my fault! Excuse me, I often sum up my opinion excessively, maybe
because I can't write well in English...

> My proposal was, that you only use that indentation to *detect* the list
> structures! How do you would set them afterwards, is up to you.
> 
> As I have understand, there were problems in recognizing, what part of
> text belongs to which list, respectively how to indicate verbose!
> 
> So I have proposed the above only as analyze criterium for you to find
> out the intended structure of the elements. It has *nothing* to do, how
> the e.g. HTML output would looks like!

Well, please forget my example of HTML and about case of ItemList and
EnumList too. This is about DescList again.

In [ruby-talk:00704], you proposed to define baseline of DescList according
to indent of Term-part like this:

:    Term
     |<-- baseline
     First TextElement
       Verbatim, because deeper
     First TextElement too.

Is my understanding right?

And my opinion is:
I want to write DescList whose Term-part and Definition-part have different
baselines like this:

: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.

So, I suppose your proposal to define baseline of Definition-part 
by Term-part might be restriction.
(There is the reason  I write such DescList in [ruby-talk:00726])

> 
> PS: I really should find time to learn Japanese, shouldn't I? ;-))))

Oh, it is me who have to learn English...

But, to learn Japanese is not bad idea because there are a lot of Ruby hacker
in ruby-list, Japanese Ruby ML.

---
Tosh