diff --git a/resources/css/epub.css b/resources/css/epub.css
index 10bb2c6..5929b70 100644
--- a/resources/css/epub.css
+++ b/resources/css/epub.css
@@ -145,8 +145,32 @@ ul.subject li.subjectallcaps {
li.subjectflushleft {
padding-bottom: 1em;
}
+/* A nested list inside a participants/subject list is a GROUP — a labeled block
+ ("State:", "OSD:") or, in the newer volumes, an unlabeled delegation — and in
+ the printed volumes a group is set at the SAME indent as an ungrouped name,
+ separated only by the blank line below. See frus1981-88v44p1 p. 173, where
+ the agency labels sit exactly on the names' measure.
+
+ Without the pull-back the indent compounds, because `ul.subject li` above is a
+ descendant selector and so applies its 4em at every depth: a one-group list
+ put its names 4em too deep and a two-group list 8em (frus1981-88v16 d478 and
+ d471, measured at 94px and 152px against an ungrouped item's 37px). The
+ negative margin cancels the wrapping 's indent at whatever depth it
+ occurs, so grouped and ungrouped names land on the same measure.
+
+ This does not disturb the published corpus. Where the nested list has a
+ the transform emits …, and
+ the HTML parser auto-closes the outer , so the is never inside an -
+ to begin with and none of these rules match it. Only a headless group — the
+ shape the newer volumes use and legacy almost never does — nests cleanly
+ enough to compound. */
ul.subject li ul {
padding-bottom: 1em;
+ margin-left: -4em;
+}
+/* a group's own label aligns with the names it heads, not with PARTICIPANTS */
+ul.subject li ul > li.subjectallcaps {
+ padding-left: 2em;
}
p.subjectallcaps {
font-size: smaller;