Re: [Docutils-develop] QuickRef (was RE: Figure references)

[David G. <go...@us...>]

[Tony, re "fold-in" and "call-out" references]
> The names of the two styles certainly don't help - good naming is
> one of the hardest bits of any task, and I don't think I did
> particularly well there. On the other hand, they *are* two different
> things, and both styles are important - what *are* they called?

Yes, the proper names would help.  I have the feeling I saw the name
of the hardcopy style somewhere, but I haven't been able to find it.

> However, in that case I still think the quickref has to say "well,
> there are these two possible styles of output, and you'll get the
> one best suited to your output medium"

A note saying that would be fine.  I just think it's over-emphasized
and under-justified at present.

-- 
David Goodger  <go...@us...>  Open-source projects:
  - Python Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
    (includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html)
  - The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sourceforge.net/