From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Indentation contest nxml vs xml-mode
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:34:17 +0100
Message-ID: <47D07169.9030703@gmail.com>
References: <47D03AE7.8070408@gmail.com>
	<00a601c87fba$febc3150$0600a8c0@us.oracle.com>
	<47D06DBC.3050800@gnu.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204842882 9475 80.91.229.12 (6 Mar 2008 22:34:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 22:34:42 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>, 'Emacs Devel' <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
To: Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 06 23:35:09 2008
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1JXOg6-0006Xr-Go
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:35:06 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JXOfY-0000dC-QK
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:34:32 -0500
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JXOfU-0000ck-Hr
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:34:28 -0500
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JXOfS-0000cS-Jc
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:34:27 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXOfS-0000cM-H5
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:34:26 -0500
Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>)
	id 1JXOfO-0001Y1-G9; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:34:22 -0500
Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:59729
	helo=[127.0.0.1])
	by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68)
	(envelope-from <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>)
	id 1JXOfM-0006o8-9P; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:34:21 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666
In-Reply-To: <47D06DBC.3050800@gnu.org>
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080306-1, 2008-03-06), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228
X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1JXOfM-0006o8-9P.
X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1JXOfM-0006o8-9P
	21f99c75481748be5adb1a1b4418c566
X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:91558
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/91558>

Jason Rumney wrote:
> Drew Adams wrote:
>>> Try indenting the following in nxml-mode and xml-mode:
>>>
>>> <outermost>
>>>    <inner1><inner2>
>>>        <inner3>Duh</inner3>
>>>      </inner2>
>>>    </inner1>
>>> </outermost>
>>>
>>> I think xml-mode wins here.
> 
> This has been discussed here before. Try it with some real elements...
> 
> <html>
>  <body><b>
>    <i>Duh</i>
>    </b>
>  </body>
> </html>
> 
> Which indentation looks more correct now?

I am not sure, but the main thing is if we can get rid of one of those 
(and I suggest to get rid of nxml-mode's variant because I think there 
is a bug there).

> nxml's indentation is based on the fact that you are using <inner2> in a 
> way that suggests that it has inline, not block semantics.