From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2008-05-14 13:45:16
|
Here are some user comments about plug-ins. I am particularly interested in having a math directive and in moving Jens's stuff into the core. First, it seems to me that there are some parallels the availability of other files required for proper document processing. (I am thinking of included files and images.) So any workaround for these absences should be acceptable for a plugin absence. Second, the browser example suggests that a reasonable response to a missing standard plug-in is to offer to download it. Finally, continuing your LaTeX example, document processing need *not* just halt if a package is missing. There are a couple aspects of this. First, depending on one's LaTeX distribution, you may get an offer to download the package from a repository. This might provide a model for small docutils plugins? Second, if you instead proceed without the package, commands that are already defined simply retain their current definition. Third, processing pauses upon the encounter of an unknown command, and you are given the option of disregarding this instance, disregarding all instances, or aborting. In the case of a possible math directive, I would imagine a default behavior of rendering it as a literal block, with an option to render nothing instead. So for example the LaTeX writer would handle:: .. math:: :format: latex as a LaTeX equation, whereas (because of Jens's work) an XHTML writer would produce MathML, but if either encountered:: .. math:: :format: lout they would (until a future contribution) render it verbatim. Might that work? One user's perspective, Alan |