From: David G. <go...@py...> - 2003-06-26 19:10:40
|
Aahz wrote: > I believe there are three basic options at this point: > > * Use a backslash-based markup system Which I think is not in keeping with the goals and spirit of reStructuredText. > * Allow nested interpreted text, requiring that all nested roles be > explicit and prefix-based, I envisage something a bit looser. Explicit-role interpreted text must be nestable. Prefix-based is probably preferred, since suffix-based will look like inline literals:: ``text`:role1:`:role2: But it can be disambiguated, so it ought to be left up to the author:: `\ `text`:role1:`:role2: In addition, other forms of inline markup may be nested if unambiguous:: *emphasized ``literal`` and |substitution ref| and link_* IOW, the parser ought to be as permissive as possible. > plus adding new roles for things like emphasis Note that these roles are already there: emphasis, strong, literal. > * Create a new punctuation As in Paul Tremblay's proposal? I doubt new punctuation is necessary. > Of the three, I see only the first two options as viable. If Mark > is pushing the first option, that's not unreasonable, IMO, though I > think the second option will end up being chosen. That's my thinking also (modulo the comments above). -- David Goodger http://starship.python.net/~goodger For hire: http://starship.python.net/~goodger/cv Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/ (includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html) |