[Doc-SIG] Clarification: interpreted text vs. directives vs.
Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:45:08 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, David Goodger wrote:
> Alan Jaffray wrote:
> > 1) Does the "indirect directive" have access to the substitution
> > reference text?
> I assume you mean the substitution name, the text between the "`/" and "/`"?
> Currently no, it doesn't. I don't see why it would need any such access.
Well, going back to that inline image example::
The `/biohazard/` symbol is scary-looking.
.. /biohazard/ image:: biohazard.png
The intended HTML output is::
The <img src="biohazard.png" alt="biohazard"> symbol is scary-looking.
That alt text needs to come from somewhere.
> > 2) I dislike the slashes. To me they mean either "italics" or "path"
> > or "regex". The latter two are also sources of ambiguity. I can't
> > think of a *good* syntax, but I think `` `|text here|` `` and
> > ``.. |text here| directive:: args`` would be better.
> Decent alternative. I'll take it under advisement. (Now I've got judiciary
Delusions? That's no delusion. :)
> Another possibility is `[name]`. Each of `/name/` and `[name]` and `|name|`
> effectively limit (albeit only slightly) interpreted text though. Other
> (more radical) alternatives?
I'm surprised you'd be willing to go for `` `[name]` ``. That would be
my preference, but I'm not sure what we'd do about the referent, since
``.. [name]`` is footnote syntax.
> > [...]
> > However, I expect everyone else will disagree. :-)
I'm getting used to it. :-)