|
From: Guenter M. <mi...@us...> - 2021-06-03 13:48:37
|
On 2021-06-01, Alan G. Isaac wrote:
> Adding a comment within an epigraph directive produces
> an extra (empty) blockquote element in the output. E.g.,
> .. epigraph::
> An epigraph.
> -- A.U. Thor
> .. a comment
I am not surprised:
* The “epigraph” directive produces an “epigraph”-class block quote.
-- docutils/docs/ref/rst/directives.html#epigraph
* Multiple block quotes may occur consecutively if terminated with
attributions.
-- docutils/docs/ref/rst/directives.html#epigraph
* The directive block consists of any text on the first line of the
directive after the directive marker, and any subsequent indented text.
-- docutils/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#directives
The attribution only closes the block-quote, not the
directive.
* The directive block consists of any text on the first line of the
directive after the directive marker, and any subsequent indented text.
-- docutils/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#directives
The attribution only closes the block-quote, not the
directive::
.. epigraph::
An epigraph.
-- S. Ource
Another epigraph
* Comments may replace text blocks in syntax constructs::
This is a paragraph
.. this is a comment in a block-quote
See the pseudo-xml output of this example.
* The directive block consists of any text on the first line of the
directive after the directive marker, and any subsequent indented text.
-- docutils/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#directives
The attribution only closes the block-quote, not the
directive.
I agree that other outcomes may be equally feasible but I cannot see a clear
winner in any other handling of the given input example.
If you really want a block quote after the attribution without the
"epigraph" class, the two input alternatives give the same result
(except for the different place of the empty comment)::
.. epigraph::
a block quote
-- by someone
..
the next block-quote: no epigraph
.. class:: epigraph
..
a block quote
-- by someone
the next block-quote: no longer epigraph
Günter
|