Simplified div syntax for definition lists?

[cscheid]

WRT #12 :

@hadley likes a simpler syntax:

* term1
  
  para with def1

  para with def2

* term2

  para with def1

  para with def 2

This is cleaner then what we have:

* term1
  * bulletlistitem with def1
  * bulletlistitem with def2
* term2
  * bulletlistitem with def1
  * bulletlistitem with def 2

The problem with the simplified definition is that Pandoc supports more than one para per definition. If we implement this, then, we will need to allow both syntaxes.

But we have reasons to not want multiple equivalent syntaxes. Multiple syntaxes increases the set of non-canonical documents. If the desugaring step is many-to-one, then the "resugaring step" needs to make a choice, which means that only one of the sugared notations is preserved under round tripping. That reduces the quality of the experience for collaborative writing.

[hadley]

@cscheid my situation was a little different — I had a one-to-one mapping between dt and dd, but my dd's where multi-paragraph.

[cscheid]

@cscheid my situation was a little different — I had a one-to-one mapping between dt and dd, but my dd's where multi-paragraph.

Ah, sorry. In your convention there's only one definition, but it can have many paragraphs?

(In that case we could support it by having a single-definition term-def be serialized as the second-and-later paragraphs of the bulletlist item. Hmmm...)

[hadley]

Yeah, exactly.