From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/9987 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Giuseppe Bilotta Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re[5]: In-paragraph display Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:25:56 +0100 Sender: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl Message-ID: <741344773.20021203102556@iol.it> References: <13EC3A06-065D-11D7-B956-0030657A7050@fastmail.fm> Reply-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1038907594 2816 80.91.224.249 (3 Dec 2002 09:26:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:26:34 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from ref.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.13] helo=ref.ntg.nl) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18J9K5-0000jH-00 for ; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:26:33 +0100 Original-Received: from ref.ntg.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1082210AE8; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:28:52 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: from mbox.dmi.unict.it (mbox.dmi.unict.it [151.97.252.66]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 339F410AE6 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:27:32 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: from OBLOMOV.mshome.net (oblomov.dipmat.unict.it [151.97.252.27]) by mbox.dmi.unict.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0FFBC6F34 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:20:17 +0100 (CET) X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62 Beta/17) Business X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Original-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl In-Reply-To: <13EC3A06-065D-11D7-B956-0030657A7050@fastmail.fm> Errors-To: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk X-Reply-To: Giuseppe Bilotta List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:9987 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:9987 Tuesday, December 3, 2002 Bruce D'Arcus wrote: >> This is where we differ. After all, the empty line is the >> *standard* TeX (and ConTeXt) way to denote new paragraph. While >> should it be different for displayed items? It's inconsistent. BDA> For what it's worth, I agree with Giuseppe here. It's the same issue BDA> I had with block quotes: that even if there's no blank line, ConTeXt BDA> assumes new paragraph. The blockquote example is a very good example, IMO: an "indipendent" (new paragraphed) block quote/quotation/whatever is not "conceptually" different from a "displayed" (that doesn't start a new paragraph) block quote/quotation/whatever. So there should be no need to mark it up differently (as is required by the ConTeXt assumption on paragrah breaking). -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta