On Thursday 11 February 2010 18:55:01 Aditya Mahajan wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Alan BRASLAU wrote:
PS: Your opinion is not so humble, and I do not really see the rational why indentnext=no is the default for most things* rather than indentnext=auto.
Below is my understanding of ConTeXt's design principle (Hans or Taco should correct me if I am wrong). Content should be separate from presentation. This means that indentation should be a function of semantics, and not of how you format your source. So
some text ... \startitemize \item \item \stopitemize some more text
and
some text
\startitemize \item \item \stopitemize
some more text ...
should give the same result. If you want an item group that does not start a paragraph, and an item group that starts a new paragraph, then they are two different objects and you should define two different environments for them.
\defineitemgroup[spitemize] %single para [indentnext=no, before=\blank, after=\blank]
\defineitemgroup[mpitemize] %multi para [indentnext=yes, before={\blank[big]}, after={\blank[big]}]
Then you can use \startspitemize or \startmpitemize dependening on what you want. The way you format the source does not matter.
Aditya
That is really "ugly": different cases of itemize... If indeed the design principle that you describe is true, then I would *strongly* argue that one should get rid of a blank line separating paragraphs and *require* the use of \par I don't totally agree with this, as I think that the document source should look as simple as possible, and paragraphs separated by blank lines do a lot to make the text readable, more so than \par A new paragraph. Alan