From: G. M. <g....@we...> - 2005-10-05 14:55:31
|
Dear David, On 4.10.05, David Goodger wrote: > > On 22.09.05, Felix Wiemann wrote: > >> Please have a look at the following ideas: > >> > >> * Regarding the **document model**, I suggest the following:: > > ... > >> So a figure must have either a title or a caption. > > [G. Milde] > > Why not use "title" with a "placement" argument:: > > Because all "title" elements in all doctrees would then have that > attribute. Better to put the attribute on the parent element > ("figure" in this case). The title doesn't care where it is, but the > figure cares where the title is! This makes sense. Agreed. > But I wouldn't go that route. Rather, ... > > > or let simply the position on the tree decide:: OTOH, if the placement (above vs. below) is given as argument to the parent element, it could be (in a truly "separating content from layout" manner) changed for the whole document with just one setting. > Then we might as well keep "caption" elements. IMHO, there is no need to introduce (or keep) a "caption" element. > > The "table" directive should be usable for creating a "formal" > > table, > > Yes. > > > e.g. by creating a figure element passing it the option > > ``:sequence: table``. > ... > No. Figures aren't tables, nor vice-versa. See my other reply today > (to Felix). ... > Rather than a special "figure" object, let's have a dedicated object > -- "formal", unless someone comes up with a better name. Agreed. My name suggestion is *inset* which IMHO conveys the meaning that this is (mostly) something out of the main flow of the document (therefore the numbering and referencing) and is sufficiently generic to comprise figures, tables, examples, info-boxes and maybe even foot- and margin-notes. I'd also define a generic "inset" directive for less often used cases, for example:: .. inset:: <title of inset> :sequence: example This is a small example. It will get a number. It might get some coloring by a custom stylesheet. Thanks Guenter -- G.Milde web.de |