[Doc-SIG] Call for opinions on "inline external targets" idea
Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:23:01 +0200
Moore, Paul (Paul.Moore@atosorigin.com) wrote:
> From: Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Garth Kidd wrote:
> > > I strongly prefer the current way of doing it. Inline is
> > > spectactularly messy, IMHO.
> > I vehemently agree with Garth (gosh, that's nice) and David
> FWIW (not much, as I don't use reST much for this type of thing) I agree as
> well. The proposed syntax is far too punctuation-heavy, and any of the
> alternatives discussed are ambiguous or too subtle.
Just for the records: The reference__ __<uri> syntax is punctuation
heavy, but this is due to the fact that David *wanted* to have a
whitespace between the reference and the uri. I originally proposed
reference_(uri) (which has issues of parentheses being a valid
URI-Component) and I currently would prefer reference_<uri>
or reference_<<uri>>. Since it is allowed to break URIs with
newlines the reason for embedding the whitespace in the syntax
IMHO has gone.