[Doc-SIG] URLs

Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) tony@lsl.co.uk
Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:52:02 -0000

Edward D. Loper wrote:
> Since [] are not allowed in URLs, and we already have expressions of
> the form "name":[ref], how does the following sound:
>   Use "name":[ref] for in-line hrefs.  If ref is a single token, and
>   there is a directive of the form:
>      ..[ref] url
>   Then use url as the URL; otherwise, use ref as the URL.

Inline refs were introduced deliberately to look like footnotes - that
is, the rendering of the '[..]' is *meant* to be identical (so [fred] in
STpy text should look like [fred] in the final HTML, TeX or whatever,
module underlining and other indicators). Requiring *inline* refs to
have funny quoted text in front of them would reduce their usefulness.

So far as I'm concerned, they make sense, I've implemented them in
docutils (trivial) and I *like* them (the only problem with them is the
introductory '..' on the anchors, and I can't see a way around that
that's simple).

They match a convention people already use. 'nuff said.

As a separate issue, for *non* inline references, it would indeed be
quite nice if we could delimit all URLs in some way (using '<' and '>'
would actually be a lot more traditional). But I think this is way too
late on the "compatibility with all other forms of ST" basis - i.e.,
this would be a big break with the past.

*But* raise it over on the STNG side. If they went for requiring::

	"some text":<http://some.url/>
	"more text":<fred.html#label>
	"more more", <http://fred.label>

instead of::

	"some text":http://some.url/
	"more text":fred.html#label
	"more more", http://fred.label

*then* I would go for it (but only then).

It would indeed make life a lot simpler.


Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)      http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/
Give a pedant an inch and they'll take 25.4mm
(once they've established you're talking a post-1959 inch, of course)
My views! Mine! Mine! (Unless Laser-Scan ask nicely to borrow them.)