[Doc-SIG] formalizing StructuredText
Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)
Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:13:44 -0000
Edward D. Loper:
> > (well bugger me - my #inline(code)# proposal got implemented !)
> That was your idea? One day, we should trace back all of these ideas
> to their originators, and maybe give them credit or something. :)
It was Eddy's idea. I believe I still have enough of the archives of the
doc-sig to be able to reconstruct most of the attribution for "new"
ideas, so yes, it might be a nice thing to note who came up with what
(although people like David Ascher also deserve note for sheer effort as
well (btw, I think he came up with ':' tags)).
> > 2a. subsidiary cases
is not allowed under STClassic, so one wouldn't expect to add it.
> > 3: some of us like colons
> It's hard to come up with a rule that's both simple and safe, but
> covers cases like '2a.' and '3:'. So, unless Tibs or others
> strongly object, I think we should just stick with '([0-9]+\.)+'. :)
I'll think about this harder after alpha release, but it sounds like a
non-silly idea for STminus, at least.
> > > * What do you do with things like::
> > >
> > > This *is "too* confusing":http://some.url
> > Find author, apply pain (to taste).
> > Give them the opportunity to retract.
> > If they refuse, apply lethal doses of pain.
> > Then they won't repeat the offence.
> > No problem.
> Perhaps I should rephrase that. What should a *parser* do?
> I guess "die" is a good answer, though it sounds like you might
> prefer something along the lines of "erase their hard drive." :)
A parser will have no problems with that text. It will parse it and give
an answer. Whether it is what the user would expect (if it's docutils,
it will probably be what *I* expect!).
btw, I assume that is going into your test suite as an awkward case?
Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/
"How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive
continuity of ducks." - Dorothy L. Sayers, "Gaudy Night"
My views! Mine! Mine! (Unless Laser-Scan ask nicely to borrow them.)