On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> Do we really have nothing better to do than to impose >> bureaucratic rules on what characters to use as bullet symbols in long >> descriptions even if the user can tell that the character is a bullet? > > The user can tell, but scripts can't reliably.
Any script should be able to take the top 4 symbols currently used, and be able to detect them. I think *, +, - and o cover most packages, and the scripts in question can be readily expanded. All kinds of markup languages already do something similar. (markdown, Emacs org-mode, mediawiki, etc) > Long descriptions are used in several places and some of these could > render a better layout. Functionally, just rendering the description as written would suffice; the rest is aesthetics. > A good layout is pleasing for users. So it Pleasing is in the eye of the beholder, no? > is not stupid bureaucracy but making our descriptions better readable > (for instance on packages.d.o and other places). I find the descriptions on packages.d.o just fine right now. Having sad that, I would not be averse to specifying that leading white space and *, +, and - would be acceptable as bullet marks (I thought specifying which mark at which level was overspecification). manoj -- A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. -- Butler Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org