You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Brahmali has requested subdefinitions in certain cases in the Vinaya, see list below.
I won't simply add these as-is, because nested block-level tags are tricky, in particular, ensuring that they properly translate to LaTeX.
I need to be persuaded that this is a good idea to justify the added complexity.
Currently, what the markup expresses is:
this is a term to be defined
this is the definition of this term
Now, this does not have any inherent assumptions regarding hierarchical nesting level. That is, simply listing the terms/definitions does not imply that they are at a single level: it just doesn't introduce the concept of levels.
So as i see it the current markup is fine: it perfectly expresses the idea that we have a list of terms and definitions.
If we were to introduce a level of subdefinitions we would have to solve the following.
do the HTML markup
this is pretty simple, HTML inherently allows nesting in most cases
transform for EPUB
in theory just the same as HTML, but in practice I have no idea what ereaders will make of this.
transform to LaTeX
I have no idea if LaTeX supports nested subdefinitions. Presumably it is possible, but it would have to be researched. Then the actual transformation would have to be programmed.
style appropriately.
nested indents rapidly become a problem on mobiles
note that the indent will in any case be ignored in side by side view
style in LaTeX
I don't think this is worth it. There comes a point of diminishing returns, and I think this is over it.
Change my mind!
second level of indentation required for sub-definitions, that is, sub-terms and sub-glosses:
bu-vb-pc4:2.1.9 - 2.1.16 (but 2.1.17 is a normal gloss and really a continuation of 2.1.8)
bu-vb-pc10:2.1.7 - 2.1.14
bu-vb-pc11:2.1.3 - 2.1.12
bu-vb-pc54:2.1.3 - 2.1.6
bu-vb-pc59:2.1.21 - 2.1.27
bu-vb-pc69:2.1.15 - 2.1.19
bu-vb-pc70:2.1.33 - 2.1.37
bu-vb-pc85:5.1.7 - 5.1.8
bu-vb-pd3:4.1.11
bu-vb-pd3:4.1.12
bu-vb-pd3:4.1.15
bu-vb-pd3:4.1.16
bu-vb-pd4:3.1.16-3.1.24
bu-vb-pd4:3.1.34-3.1.35
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In either an oral or palm leaf tradition, would those sub definitions even be expressed in any way? I can't imagine how. I'm also not sure how indicating them with formatting would really aid the reader.
Brahmali has requested subdefinitions in certain cases in the Vinaya, see list below.
I won't simply add these as-is, because nested block-level tags are tricky, in particular, ensuring that they properly translate to LaTeX.
I need to be persuaded that this is a good idea to justify the added complexity.
Currently, what the markup expresses is:
Now, this does not have any inherent assumptions regarding hierarchical nesting level. That is, simply listing the terms/definitions does not imply that they are at a single level: it just doesn't introduce the concept of levels.
So as i see it the current markup is fine: it perfectly expresses the idea that we have a list of terms and definitions.
If we were to introduce a level of subdefinitions we would have to solve the following.
I don't think this is worth it. There comes a point of diminishing returns, and I think this is over it.
Change my mind!
second level of indentation required for sub-definitions, that is, sub-terms and sub-glosses:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: