From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Fwd: Requesting review for change to lisp/textmodes/sgml-mode.el Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:32:38 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87a8zn7vum.fsf@zigzag.favinet> <87h9ttbtq6.fsf@panthera.terpri.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1425951182 18665 80.91.229.3 (10 Mar 2015 01:33:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 01:33:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Robin Templeton Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 10 02:32:53 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YV92S-0006tC-C1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 02:32:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46054 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YV92R-0005HT-Gp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:32:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49034) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YV92K-0005H8-6d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:32:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YV92F-0000PY-6q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:32:44 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:36780) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YV92F-0000PH-2t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:32:39 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArsTAPOG1lRLd/0j/2dsb2JhbABbgwaDX4VTwGUEAgKBDUQBAQEBAQF8hA0BBAFWIwULCzQSFBgNJC6ICgjOIwEBAQcCAR+PeAeEKgWpcoFFIoQKIoJzAQEB X-IPAS-Result: ArsTAPOG1lRLd/0j/2dsb2JhbABbgwaDX4VTwGUEAgKBDUQBAQEBAQF8hA0BBAFWIwULCzQSFBgNJC6ICgjOIwEBAQcCAR+PeAeEKgWpcoFFIoQKIoJzAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,536,1418101200"; d="scan'208";a="113132525" Original-Received: from 75-119-253-35.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([75.119.253.35]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Mar 2015 21:32:38 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 45ED21047; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 21:32:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87h9ttbtq6.fsf@panthera.terpri.org> (Robin Templeton's message of "Mon, 09 Mar 2015 20:07:29 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:183755 Archived-At: >> Another way to look at it is that the attribute name is indented >> 2 spaces with respect to the element name, so things are working >> as designed. That's indeed the way I look at it. > That makes sense, but it seems inconsistent with the behavior of other > major modes in similar contexts. For example, Lisp indentation is > relative to the enclosing delimiter rather than the operator name. It's a philosophical question. I tend to look at XML's <...> as a parenthesis-like thingy that encloses a sub-language. > Another option would be to adopt nxml's solution and add a new variable > for the attribute indentation relative to the tag delimiter, which has > the additional advantage of allowing attribute and element indentation > to be customized independently. It could default to `(1+ > sgml-basic-offset)' to avoid changing the existing behavior. Yes, that's the main issue: the two are distinct cases that should have separate indentation rules. I think we all violently agree on this. Stefan