[Doc-SIG] Terminology (was RE: formalizing Structured Text)

[Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)]

Edward D. Loper wrote:
> I wanted to make sure my terminology was clear, because it looked
> like the indentation got messed up somehow.  My terms are:
>     * valid
>     * invalid
>         * illegal
>         * undefined

Ah - that makes more sense. I wondered if that had happened.

In that case, I agree, and will try to conform myself.

Now - earlier on you called me to task on my naming of paragraphs and so
on (correctly so). I started to work up a list of "common terms", so we
could reach agreement (I surely need better terms, as we saw) but ran
out of time.

Could I ask you to run something together to float on the list? I think
(from inaccurate memory) we have something like:

text block -- one of the many sorts of paragraph

paragraph -- a "vanilla" text block

list item -- a text block that starts a list item

Python block -- a literal text block introduced by '>>>'

literal block -- a literal text block introduced by '::',
                 may contain blank lines

markup -- the result of colourising

literal string -- what goes within single quotes

Python string -- what goes within '#..#'

emphasised text -- what goes within '*..*'

strong text -- what goes within '**..**'

	hmm - shift between 'text' and 'string' is clumsy,
      but may be justified - they *are* strings, sort of.

URL -- shorthand (inaccurate) for a URI

quoted string -- something in '".."'

paragraph label -- we must have a better name for this

anchor -- a '..[anchor]' thingy - maybe we actually have
          an "anchor block" as well

localref -- or "local reference" - refers to an anchor,
            looks like '[this]'

Please criticise!

Tibs

--
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.)