From: David Goodger <goodger@us...> - 2003-05-24 21:53:24
Update of /cvsroot/docutils/docutils/spec
In directory sc8-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv21383/spec
RCS file: /cvsroot/docutils/docutils/spec/notes.txt,v
retrieving revision 1.136
retrieving revision 1.137
diff -u -d -r1.136 -r1.137
--- notes.txt 24 May 2003 20:54:10 -0000 1.136
+++ notes.txt 24 May 2003 21:45:20 -0000 1.137
@@ -1365,9 +1365,9 @@
worked out though. Syntax idea from Jeffrey C. Jacobs.
The example above would implement the "rewrite" role as adding a
- ``class="rewrite"`` attribute to the interpreted text. The
- stylesheet would then pick up on the "class" attribute to do the
- actual formatting.
+ ``class="rewrite"`` attribute to the interpreted text ("inline"
+ element). The stylesheet would then pick up on the "class"
+ attribute to do the actual formatting.
The same thing could be done with a directive, albeit a bit more
@@ -1377,24 +1377,6 @@
The advantage of the new syntax would be flexibility. Uses other
than "class" may present themselves.
- But what's the doctree element? Shall we introduce an arbitrary
- <span>-like element? Put "interpreted" back for such purposes? I
- currently like "phrase". "inline" may be better. But:
- ...my penny on <span>: I think <span> is inherently evil. More
- than enough I learned to hate <span> because some HTML pages are
- full of it and it is a pain to translate them to a useful
- I think <span> is an indication that you don't have a concept
- for what you want to express. <span> is totally unrelated to the
- *real* structure of the information and introduces more or less
- a new language. I think this should be prevented.
- -- Stefan Merten
- Lesser of two evils?
* Add new syntax for _`nested inline markup`? From a proposal by Paul