From: Garth K. <ga...@de...> - 2002-08-20 01:46:14
|
> So, should it be:: > > .. raw:: html fragment.html > > or:: > > .. include:: fragment.html > :raw: html +1 to having both both available (i.e. ``raw::`` mapping directly to ``include::`` with ``:raw:`` set, or vice versa). Now, anyone want to explain why it's ``html`` and not a full MIME type? :) Regards, Garth. |