Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add support for nested subdefinitions? #2818

Open
14 tasks
sujato opened this issue Oct 6, 2023 · 1 comment
Open
14 tasks

add support for nested subdefinitions? #2818

sujato opened this issue Oct 6, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@sujato
Copy link
Contributor

sujato commented Oct 6, 2023

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
@thesunshade
Copy link
Collaborator

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants