26 Sep
2008
26 Sep
'08
1:14 a.m.
Vincent Massol wrote:
On Sep 25, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Of all the choices, it seems to be the least bad one.
Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Yes that's the reason I didn't list it.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Guillaume was surprised (and rightly so) that we use this format for
> nested lists:
>
> 111*.
>
> He was expecting 111.*
How come?
> I remember I had the same remark the first
time I saw this a long
> time
> ago.
>
> Thus (if we agree) we have 2 solutions:
>
> Solution 1:
> =========
>
> 111.*
-0.5, for me at least it is not intuitive at all.
> Solution 2:
> ========
>
> 1.1.1.*
+0.25
A bit too long.
I'm in favor of this solution since it
follows the usual pattern
for lists :
*
**
1.
1.1.
We could also have a simple dotless 1, like:
1 list item
1* subitem
1* subitem
1*1 numbered subitem
1*1 numbered subitem
Of course this means that any non-list 1 at the start of the row
should
be escaped. Also, it is confusing with the old header syntax. If the dot's placement is not clear enough,
we could use ), like:
1) item
1*) subitemitem
111) etc
This sounds too different from other syntaxes ( http://www
.wikimatrix.org/syntax.php?i=33).
So are you saying that the current notation ("1111*.") is ok for you? Thanks
-Vincent
>> thus making it easier for users to remember : indent one level =
>> duplicate
>> the symbol .
>>
>> Guillaume
>>
>>
>>> Another solution would be to use another symbol but we cannot use #
>>> and the second most common solution is "1."
>>> See http://www.wikimatrix.org/syntax.php?i=33
>>>
>>> I'm hesitating but I propose to use Solution 2 which seems the most
>>> consistent to me.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/