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 |