From: David Priest <priest@sf...> - 2004-04-21 15:49:56
I'm stuck using WebMail today, so I'm combining a few messages:
On 20 Apr 2004 at 19:44, Aahz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2004, David Priest wrote:
> > I also then expect almost all directives to also look like
> > .. this: because
> > that also closely parallels the link and footnote target markup.
> That bites me regularly::
> .. directive::
I'd prefer to see double-dot-space / command / double-colon as the
standard DocUtils markup-marker. It's unusual enough to avoid being
Everything that starts with a double-dot should end with a double-
On 20 Apr 2004 at 21:10, David Goodger wrote:
> being a target is not a footnote's primary purpose
I'd argue that the footnote *marker's* primary purpose is very
explicitly to be a target. That's precisely the how and why of
If it wasn't to act as a target, you wouldn't even have ordered,
unique footnote indicators. You'd fire a splat at the end of the
phrase that's being footnoted, and the footnotes themselves wouldn't
be specially marked beyond being "under the line" and perhaps in
I think there's been enough discussion on this. It may well be that
this is a legacy problem that should be carried forward, or it may be
that we can more or less safely remedy this inconsistency. Either
way, I'll live with it.
On 20 Apr 2004 at 20:26, Ian Bicking wrote:
> Comments always seemed too easy. I almost never write comments -- it
> would be weird to do so in most cases. Probably only sensible if you
> have weird markup -- but avoid weird markup is what we're already
> trying to do.
Comments are perfectly sensible if you're doing collaborative
documentation. They're the only way to leave notes for the other
writers without having them inserted into the production output.
My comments are marked as
.. @DCP: comment text.
I'd be perfectly happy to make them explicit:
.. comment:: @DCP
I use an @ only because it's makes the initials wholly distinctive
when using search commands.