[Doc-SIG] Alternative inline markup

[Alan Jaffray]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Alan Jaffray wrote:
> 
> >But even with my suggestion, you can still write {'a':1, 'b':2}.  What
> >you can't write without escaping is::
> >
> >    `{'a':1, 'b':2}`__
> >
> >    __ /docs/dictionary.html
> 
> Snmfrglph. Can you encapsulate the rule that makes this true in a simple
> statement. David's substitutions can be easily encapsulated as "starts
> with ```/`` and ends with ``/```". Are you defining a construct which
> starts with ```{`` and ends with ``}`__``?

Ack, no!  I'm saying that in the existing construct ::

    `content content content`__

curly braces in the content would have to be escaped.  So if the content
was ``{'a':1, 'b':2}`` you'd have to write ``\{'a':1, 'b':2\}`` instead.

This is certainly ugly, the same way escaping backslashes and backquotes
in single-backquote-delimited content is ugly.  Fortunately it should be
exceedingly rare.

> You may well be right. This message (yours) has certainly eased some of
> my concerns, in theory. But I'd like to see:
> 
> 1. Clearer definitions of the syntax rules, in the context of the
>    reST spec (so I can see what are exceptions, and what fall naturally
>    into the overall scheme.
> 
> 2. More use cases, and examples. In context others can relate to. Your
>    user example does nothing for me, as I can't see how it would fit
>    into my model (marked up text documents being processed into a
>    printable form, ut eradable in "raw" form as well).
> 
> 3. Better separation of distinct cases. I think there is more than
>    one concept being discussed at once, here...

Oh, certainly!  These are all necessary.  They'll be easier to provide
now that you and others have offered feedback.  I knew there were issues
with my latest proposal, but it seemed better to get *something* out
there rather than continue to ponder in isolation.

I'll try to send out an edited and clearer proposal with a wider variety
of examples within a day or two.

> Thanks for keeping up with this - we seem to be getting closer.

Agreed.  Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Alan