From: Leandro L. <ll...@gm...> - 2009-10-13 02:25:50
|
Now that 0.6 is out (thanks for the release, BTW), is there any chance to discuss how it would be acceptable to add some way to specify an imagemap using reST? There is a patch here: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2823466&group_id=38414&atid=422032 There were some objections to the option name for example. Would be enough finding a better name or there are other things that should be worked out? Thanks. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- De tan fina la condesa, por no cagarse, reza. -- Ricardo Vaporeso |
From: Guenter M. <mi...@us...> - 2009-10-14 21:27:18
|
On 2009-10-13, Leandro Lucarella wrote: > Now that 0.6 is out (thanks for the release, BTW), is there any chance to > discuss how it would be acceptable to add some way to specify an imagemap > using reST? > There is a patch here: > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2823466&group_id=38414&atid=422032 > There were some objections to the option name for example. My vote is for "imagemap". The wikipedia defines this as: In HTML and XHTML, an image map is a list of coordinates relating to a specific image, created in order to hyperlink areas of the image to various destinations while "usemap" is not defined in any "common" dictionary but a HTML special name (meaning "*use* the image *map* ...") and "linkmap" returns Did you mean: linemap plus a list of Austrian external links (in German) so "linkmap" seems to be a Gemanicism. > Would be enough finding a better name or there are other things that > should be worked out? Other things to do: a) Ruling out simpler alternatives The "classical" way to pass on "optional" information (i.e. a writer is free to ignore it) is a class argument. However, this is not suited in this case, as we need to specify a relation: <image imagemap = "mymap"> seems simpler and clearer than <image classes = "imagemap-mymap"> b) Thinking about an implementation that "fits" in. The proposed syntax: .. image:: URL :imagemap: mymap seems fine and fits with similar attributes. Documenting that this feature is not supported by all output formats if of course required. I vote for an inclusion. Günter Günter |
From: Leandro L. <ll...@gm...> - 2009-10-15 04:10:56
|
Guenter Milde, el 14 de octubre a las 21:26 me escribiste: [snip] > b) Thinking about an implementation that "fits" in. > > The proposed syntax: > > .. image:: URL > :imagemap: mymap > > seems fine and fits with similar attributes. > > Documenting that this feature is not supported by all output formats > if of course required. > > I vote for an inclusion. Looks reasonable for me, I can't update the patch if this has consensus. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pa' ella cociné, pa' ella lavé, pa' ella soñe Paella completa, $2,50 Pero, la luz mala me tira, y yo? yo soy ligero pa'l trote La luz buena, está en el monte, allá voy, al horizonte |
From: Michael F. <fuz...@vo...> - 2009-10-15 08:30:11
|
Seems good to me. Sorry for top posting, mobile device. Michael -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com On 15 Oct 2009, at 05:08, Leandro Lucarella <ll...@gm...> wrote: > Guenter Milde, el 14 de octubre a las 21:26 me escribiste: > [snip] >> b) Thinking about an implementation that "fits" in. >> >> The proposed syntax: >> >> .. image:: URL >> :imagemap: mymap >> >> seems fine and fits with similar attributes. >> >> Documenting that this feature is not supported by all output formats >> if of course required. >> >> I vote for an inclusion. > > Looks reasonable for me, I can't update the patch if this has > consensus. > > -- > Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http:// > llucax.com.ar/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Pa' ella cociné, pa' ella lavé, pa' ella soñe > Paella completa, $2,50 > Pero, la luz mala me tira, y yo? yo soy ligero pa'l trote > La luz buena, está en el monte, allá voy, al horizonte > > > --- > --- > --- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart > your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and > stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > Docutils-develop mailing list > Doc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/docutils-develop > > Please use "Reply All" to reply to the list. |
From: Guenter M. <mi...@us...> - 2009-10-19 18:41:28
|
On 2009-10-15, Leandro Lucarella wrote: > Guenter Milde, el 14 de octubre a las 21:26 me escribiste: > [snip] >> b) Thinking about an implementation that "fits" in. >> The proposed syntax: >> .. image:: URL >> :imagemap: mymap >> seems fine and fits with similar attributes. >> Documenting that this feature is not supported by all output formats >> if of course required. >> I vote for an inclusion. > Looks reasonable for me, I can't update the patch if this has consensus. ^ What a pity. -------------------| Or do you actually mean you can do it? If so, please do so. Günter |
From: Leandro L. <ll...@gm...> - 2009-10-19 19:25:48
|
Guenter Milde, el 19 de octubre a las 18:40 me escribiste: > On 2009-10-15, Leandro Lucarella wrote: > > Guenter Milde, el 14 de octubre a las 21:26 me escribiste: > > [snip] > >> b) Thinking about an implementation that "fits" in. > > >> The proposed syntax: > > >> .. image:: URL > >> :imagemap: mymap > > >> seems fine and fits with similar attributes. > > >> Documenting that this feature is not supported by all output formats > >> if of course required. > > >> I vote for an inclusion. > > > Looks reasonable for me, I can't update the patch if this has consensus. > ^ > What a pity. -------------------| > > Or do you actually mean you can do it? If so, please do so. Yes, please s/can't/can/. =) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Your success is measured by your ability to finish things |
From: David G. <go...@py...> - 2009-10-19 18:51:24
|
I repeat my concern of Sept. 26: """ Should an HTML-only attribute be added to the doctree, which will affect all the Docutils components? Or should we find another, indirect mechanism? """ I suspect that the utility of the addition is far less than the cost (immediate code costs, long-term complexity costs and creeping featurism). What would the other writers do with an "imagemap" attribute? Would other code need to be altered to accommodate such a change? I don't see why ".. raw:: html" can't be used in this case. This is an HTML-only feature. That's what "raw" is for. Everyone: please don't apply any imagemap-related patches until these issues have been thoroughly addressed. -- David Goodger <http://python.net/~goodger> |
From: Leandro L. <ll...@gm...> - 2009-10-19 19:40:53
|
David Goodger, el 19 de octubre a las 14:50 me escribiste: > I repeat my concern of Sept. 26: > > """ > Should an HTML-only attribute be added to the doctree, which will > affect all the Docutils components? All the people that replied to this subject seems to think so. > Or should we find another, indirect mechanism? > """ I can't think of a better way. If somebody does, I'm listening. > I suspect that the utility of the addition is far less than the cost > (immediate code costs, long-term complexity costs and creeping > featurism). Again, all the people that replied to this subject seems to think otherwise. > What would the other writers do with an "imagemap" attribute? Depends on the writer, please see this message to the list: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.text.docutils.devel/4858 > Would other code need to be altered to accommodate such a change? Apparently not. All seems to work. > I don't see why ".. raw:: html" can't be used in this case. This is an > HTML-only feature. That's what "raw" is for. I proposed this to be used mostly when writing plug-ins/extensions. But even if you're are in complete control of the reST source, you'll end up repeating code. For example, I want to have a document that it could be rendered in HTML *and* PDF. What should I write? .. raw:: html <img src="xxx" usemap="xxx" alt="xxx" /> .. raw:: pdf ??? Should I lern PDF to include the image by hand? How do I get my image? I *want* the PDF writer to just include the image and ignore the imagemap (if it can't handle it). Really I don't even see a practical way to do this without introducing a new image attribute. Then, if you add images in raw HTML/PDF/whatever, you loose any reST transformations or other stuff, you're completely going outside reST, which have a lot of downsides. > Everyone: please don't apply any imagemap-related patches until these > issues have been thoroughly addressed. I hope you can now see the need (or at least usefulness) for this new attribute now. Thanks. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Es mas posible, que un elefante maneje un cero km a que un camello habite un departamento de un ambiente. -- Peperino Pómoro |
From: Guenter M. <mi...@us...> - 2009-10-25 21:57:54
|
On 2009-10-19, David Goodger wrote: > I repeat my concern of Sept. 26: > """ > Should an HTML-only attribute be added to the doctree, which will > affect all the Docutils components? Or should we find another, > indirect mechanism? > """ I understand and share your concerns, but come to a different conclusion. a) The only indirect mechanism that springs to my mind is a class argument. However, while :: .. image:: :class: imagemap is fine, how could I specify the anchor with a straightforward and "natural" syntax? b) HTML only might be a question of time: It is feasible to create an imagemap also in a PDF document. There is a (non-working) example at page 5 of http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/graphics/prerex/doc/prerex.pdf -- an image with links (which my firefox cannot open). > I suspect that the utility of the addition is far less than the cost The patch is quite small:: 6 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > (immediate code costs, 3 lines:: docutils/parsers/rst/directives/images.py | 1 + docutils/writers/html4css1/__init__.py | 2 ++ testing:: .../test_rst/test_directives/test_images.py | 8 ++++++++ test/test_writers/test_html4css1_parts.py | 12 ++++++++++++ > long-term complexity costs and creeping > featurism). IMV, there is only a small quantitative rise in complexity¹ docs/ref/docutils.dtd | 1 + docs/ref/rst/directives.txt | 6 ++++++ ¹ especially compared to the complexity of the proposed html.imagemap *directive* in todo.txt. > What would the other writers do with an "imagemap" attribute? Would > other code need to be altered to accommodate such a change? It would be handled optionally (like any other hyperlink specification). No code change is needed for this. > I don't see why ".. raw:: html" can't be used in this case. This is an > HTML-only feature. That's what "raw" is for. The "raw" directive is the right way to specify the imagemap object: there is no need to define a new RST syntax in order to specify an object that is (currently) usable in just one output format. "raw" could also be used, if the image should be omitted from other output formats. However, in many cases, the "hyperactivity" is an added bonus to an image that should stay in the document also in other output formats. > Everyone: please don't apply any imagemap-related patches until these > issues have been thoroughly addressed. What else do you need in order to convince you? Günter |
From: Leandro L. <ll...@gm...> - 2009-11-02 15:40:50
|
Leandro Lucarella, el 19 de octubre a las 16:35 me escribiste: > David Goodger, el 19 de octubre a las 14:50 me escribiste: > > Everyone: please don't apply any imagemap-related patches until these > > issues have been thoroughly addressed. > > I hope you can now see the need (or at least usefulness) for this new > attribute now. David, have you come to any conclusion about this? Thank you. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Los jóvenes no son solo brazos que nos cargan... También se los puede mandar a la guerra, que es su obligación. -- Ricardo Vaporeso |
From: Leandro L. <ll...@gm...> - 2009-12-28 17:45:46
|
Leandro Lucarella, el 2 de noviembre a las 12:35 me escribiste: > Leandro Lucarella, el 19 de octubre a las 16:35 me escribiste: > > David Goodger, el 19 de octubre a las 14:50 me escribiste: > > > Everyone: please don't apply any imagemap-related patches until these > > > issues have been thoroughly addressed. > > > > I hope you can now see the need (or at least usefulness) for this new > > attribute now. > > David, have you come to any conclusion about this? I'm sorry to raise this once again, but what is exactly the problem on having this? It's a really needed, harmless feature. If you just don't like it, can you give me a definitely no, so I can let it go in peace? Saying you're not convinced but having no intention to be convinced (or otherwise) is not helping much :) Thanks. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) |
From: Guenter M. <mi...@us...> - 2009-11-04 22:10:09
|
On 2009-11-02, Leandro Lucarella wrote: > Leandro Lucarella, el 19 de octubre a las 16:35 me escribiste: >> David Goodger, el 19 de octubre a las 14:50 me escribiste: >> > Everyone: please don't apply any imagemap-related patches until these >> > issues have been thoroughly addressed. >> I hope you can now see the need (or at least usefulness) for this new >> attribute now. One more argument against an imagemap option: There is no need to specify the alternative (no-map) image for other output formats as raw code. It could be excluded from html processing via the --strip-class=<class> option, e.g. --strip-class=no-html and :: .. class:: no-html .. image:: myimage.png .. raw:: .. the raw code for the image map which is of course more verbose than .. image:: image.png :imagemap: map but as you need the raw code for the map anyway it might be acceptable and prevents additions to the rst syntax used only in corner cases. [The picture might change once we implemented imagamap support for other output formats (it should be possible with latex and hyperref but I won't work on this soon).] > David, have you come to any conclusion about this? Günter |