Re: [Docutils-develop] More bibliographic fields: `translator` / `translators` ?

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

Adam Chodorowski wrote:
> What do you think about adding an/two extra bibliographic fields, namely
> `translator` and `translators`?

I think something could be done to accommodate this.  I've been thinking of
adding other fields, such as "reference" (for web site URLs).  I believe
Tony Ibbs would like to see "dedication".

Perhaps, in addition to the current fixed set of recognized fields, we could
have a generic bibliographic field where both the field name and the field
body are user-specified.  The set of recognized fields are useful, since
many have specialized processing.  But currently, if there's an unrecognized
field in the bibliographic field list, it's left out of the "docinfo"
element as a field of a separate, ordinary field list (the original field
list is split in two).  Maybe it's time to rethink that, and make a
general-purpose solution instead of tacking on individual cases one after
another.  Adding a field_list field to the content model of "docinfo" would
do the trick.  Then "docinfo" itself could be thought of as a specialized
field_list.

-- 
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/