From: Beni C. <cb...@us...> - 2004-07-31 21:25:21
|
David Goodger wrote: > [David Goodger] >>> .. contents:: >>> :class: sidebar > > [Beni Cherniavsky] > > It should be documented under ``contents::``, ``sidebar::`` and/or > > ``class::``. > > I'm not sure it should be documented at all. ;-) > The question is, do we want to guarantee it will keep working. > > Is it supposed to work on specific directives or on just about > > anything? > > I don't guarantee it will work on anything. It depends on the > stylesheet. But the "class" option is on many directives (wherever it > makes sense), and there's a "class" directive for other objects. They > form a generic hook into CSS classes. > It must work with any stylesheet supporting the current writer, because the current writer uses ``<div class="sidebar">`` for a sidebar and ``<div class="contents sidebar">`` as the result of this construct. (OK, any stylesheet that doesn't explictly check for the combination of "contents sidebar" and make it not work ;-). So the question is: do we wish to guarantee the writer will always use a ``div`` for both? OTOH, I share your reluctance to expose an internal implementation detail as part of reST. Even if it will always work, it's perhaps not the best way to express it. Alternative idea: add a new placement option to ``contents::``, which will for now only support a ``sidebar`` value but could gain other options, like ``frame``, in the future / in other writers. Which reminds me, does ``:class: sidebar`` work with the LaTeX writer? Checking... obviously not! Using the ``sidebar::`` hack does work. The meaning of setting a class is not currently defined for anything but the HTML writer. And it probably will never be cross-writer. So I don't think we should document any class value as working. cross-writer. (I'm still staying with ``:class: sidebar`` since it looks better in LaTeX ;-).) -- Beni Cherniavsky <cb...@us...> Note: I can only read email on week-ends... |