[ruby-talk:00733] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?)

Hi,

[...]
> > Oh! that's my fault! Excuse me, I often sum up my opinion excessively, maybe
> > because I can't write well in English...
> 
> So here we are two! :-))
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> Yep!
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> You mean you want to structure for the RD doc too, yes? If so, than matz
> proposal seems to be the best solution. With the restriction, of course,
> that we cannot denote the `First TextElement' to be a verbose one.

I think matz's proposal is the best too.

> Perhaps with using InlineElements? :-///

This means ,"Can we use InlineElement in 'First TextElement'?" ?

> > 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])
> 
> I have not paid enought attention, how you have wrote the list in your
> message; sorry :-}

No matter!

---
Tosh