[Doc-SIG] reStructuredText-to-HTML XSLT

Alan Jaffray jaffray@pobox.com
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:06:19 -0400 (EDT)

Makes sense.  However, given that the meaning of "interpreted" text 
is explicitly defined as being domain-specific, it seems to me that
there *is* no "general" meaning for it.

Perhaps it would be sensible to 

- have a directive to specify a default role for interpreted text
- allow the reST processor to take an argument for the default role
- issue a warning when processing documents with no default role
  which contain interpreted text with no explicitly specified role

Passing through markup to all outputs loses generality; it makes
no sense to say "this HTML will always be passed through unaltered"
unless you know the output format is HTML.  So the approach of my
existing stylesheet is a bad one.  However, a role which says
"output this unaltered if the output format is HTML, otherwise
ignore it" doesn't lose generality; other output formats still 
work and are unaffected by the HTML-specific instructions.


On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) wrote:
> However. We have discussed *modes* for DPS/reST (was that the term?),
> where obviously "Python" is one such, and "book" might be another. I
> have suggested in the past that maybe "HTML" would be useful, so that we
> can allow preparation of HTML pages in a simple manner. In that case, it
> *might* be argued that one *is* only aiming at HTML as output, and thus
> might want to allow "subversion" of reST to do particular things (in
> particular, horizontal rules are very useful). So maybe in that one case
> one might want to relax the rules to allow "interpreted" text to work as
> you do. However, I think one would probably want a directive in the
> document to state this (David - is that right?) so that people would
> know that this document was not a "general" document, but targetted at a
> specific output form.