/usr/share/doc/docutils-doc/docs/dev/rst/alternatives.html is in docutils-doc 0.12+dfsg-1.
This file is owned by root:root, with mode 0o644.
The actual contents of the file can be viewed below.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 2224 2225 2226 2227 2228 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2408 2409 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2480 2481 2482 2483 2484 2485 2486 2487 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2512 2513 2514 2515 2516 2517 2518 2519 2520 2521 2522 2523 2524 2525 2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 2531 2532 2533 2534 2535 2536 2537 2538 2539 2540 2541 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549 2550 2551 2552 2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564 2565 2566 2567 2568 2569 2570 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 2581 2582 2583 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 2595 2596 2597 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 2654 2655 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 2661 2662 2663 2664 2665 2666 2667 2668 2669 2670 2671 2672 2673 2674 2675 2676 2677 2678 2679 2680 2681 2682 2683 2684 2685 2686 2687 2688 2689 2690 2691 2692 2693 2694 2695 2696 2697 2698 2699 2700 2701 2702 2703 2704 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709 2710 2711 2712 2713 2714 2715 2716 2717 2718 2719 2720 2721 2722 2723 2724 2725 2726 2727 2728 2729 2730 2731 2732 2733 2734 2735 2736 2737 2738 2739 2740 2741 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 2751 2752 2753 2754 2755 2756 2757 2758 2759 2760 2761 2762 2763 2764 2765 2766 2767 2768 2769 2770 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 2777 2778 2779 2780 2781 2782 2783 2784 2785 2786 2787 2788 2789 2790 2791 2792 2793 2794 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801 2802 2803 2804 2805 2806 2807 2808 2809 2810 2811 2812 2813 2814 2815 2816 2817 2818 2819 2820 2821 2822 2823 2824 2825 2826 2827 2828 2829 2830 2831 2832 2833 2834 2835 2836 2837 2838 2839 2840 2841 2842 2843 2844 2845 2846 2847 2848 2849 2850 2851 2852 2853 2854 2855 2856 2857 2858 2859 2860 2861 2862 2863 2864 2865 2866 2867 2868 2869 2870 2871 2872 2873 2874 2875 2876 2877 2878 2879 2880 2881 2882 2883 2884 2885 2886 2887 2888 2889 2890 2891 2892 2893 2894 2895 2896 2897 2898 2899 2900 2901 2902 2903 2904 2905 2906 2907 2908 2909 2910 2911 2912 2913 2914 2915 2916 2917 2918 2919 2920 2921 2922 2923 2924 2925 2926 2927 2928 2929 2930 2931 2932 2933 2934 2935 2936 2937 2938 2939 2940 2941 2942 2943 2944 2945 2946 2947 2948 2949 2950 2951 2952 2953 2954 2955 2956 2957 2958 2959 2960 2961 2962 2963 2964 2965 2966 2967 2968 2969 2970 2971 2972 2973 2974 2975 2976 2977 2978 2979 2980 2981 2982 2983 2984 2985 2986 2987 2988 2989 2990 2991 2992 2993 2994 2995 2996 2997 2998 2999 3000 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3010 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015 3016 3017 3018 3019 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025 3026 3027 3028 3029 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035 3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055 3056 3057 3058 3059 3060 3061 3062 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3070 3071 3072 3073 3074 3075 3076 3077 3078 3079 3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085 3086 3087 3088 3089 3090 3091 3092 3093 3094 3095 3096 3097 3098 3099 3100 3101 3102 3103 3104 3105 3106 3107 3108 3109 3110 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116 3117 3118 3119 3120 3121 3122 3123 3124 3125 3126 3127 3128 3129 3130 3131 3132 3133 3134 3135 3136 3137 3138 3139 3140 3141 3142 3143 3144 3145 3146 3147 3148 3149 3150 3151 3152 3153 3154 3155 3156 | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="generator" content="Docutils 0.12: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/" />
<title>A Record of reStructuredText Syntax Alternatives</title>
<meta name="author" content="David Goodger" />
<meta name="date" content="2012-03-19" />
<meta name="copyright" content="This document has been placed in the public domain." />
<link rel="stylesheet" href="../../../css/html4css1.css" type="text/css" />
</head>
<body>
<div class="document" id="a-record-of-restructuredtext-syntax-alternatives">
<h1 class="title">A Record of reStructuredText Syntax Alternatives</h1>
<table class="docinfo" frame="void" rules="none">
<col class="docinfo-name" />
<col class="docinfo-content" />
<tbody valign="top">
<tr><th class="docinfo-name">Author:</th>
<td>David Goodger</td></tr>
<tr><th class="docinfo-name">Contact:</th>
<td><a class="first last reference external" href="mailto:docutils-develop@lists.sourceforge.net">docutils-develop@lists.sourceforge.net</a></td></tr>
<tr><th class="docinfo-name">Revision:</th>
<td>7383</td></tr>
<tr><th class="docinfo-name">Date:</th>
<td>2012-03-19</td></tr>
<tr><th class="docinfo-name">Copyright:</th>
<td>This document has been placed in the public domain.</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The following are ideas, alternatives, and justifications that were
considered for reStructuredText syntax, which did not originate with
<a class="reference external" href="http://docutils.sourceforge.net/mirror/setext.html">Setext</a> or <a class="reference external" href="http://www.zope.org/DevHome/Members/jim/StructuredTextWiki/FrontPage">StructuredText</a>. For an analysis of constructs which <em>did</em>
originate with StructuredText or Setext, please see <a class="reference external" href="problems.html">Problems With
StructuredText</a>. See the <a class="reference external" href="../../ref/rst/restructuredtext.html">reStructuredText Markup Specification</a>
for full details of the established syntax.</p>
<p>The ideas are divided into sections:</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#implemented">Implemented</a>: already done. The issues and alternatives are
recorded here for posterity.</li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#not-implemented">Not Implemented</a>: these ideas won't be implemented.</li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#tabled">Tabled</a>: these ideas should be revisited in the future.</li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#to-do">To Do</a>: these ideas should be implemented. They're just waiting
for a champion to resolve issues and get them done.</li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#or-not-to-do">... Or Not To Do?</a>: possible but questionable. These probably
won't be implemented, but you never know.</li>
</ul>
<div class="contents topic" id="contents">
<p class="topic-title first">Contents</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#implemented" id="id24">Implemented</a><ul>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#field-lists" id="id25">Field Lists</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#interpreted-text-roles" id="id26">Interpreted Text "Roles"</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#comments" id="id27">Comments</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#anonymous-hyperlinks" id="id28">Anonymous Hyperlinks</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#reworking-explicit-markup-round-1" id="id29">Reworking Explicit Markup (Round 1)</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#backquotes-in-phrase-links" id="id30">Backquotes in Phrase-Links</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#substitution-mechanism" id="id31">Substitution Mechanism</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#inline-external-targets" id="id32">Inline External Targets</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#doctree-representation-of-transitions" id="id33">Doctree Representation of Transitions</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#syntax-for-line-blocks" id="id34">Syntax for Line Blocks</a><ul>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#syntax" id="id35">Syntax</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#internal-representation" id="id36">Internal Representation</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#output" id="id37">Output</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#implementation-plan" id="id38">Implementation Plan</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#list-driven-tables" id="id39">List-Driven Tables</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#auto-enumerated-lists" id="id40">Auto-Enumerated Lists</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#adjacent-citation-references" id="id41">Adjacent citation references</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#inline-markup-recognition" id="id42">Inline markup recognition</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#not-implemented" id="id43">Not Implemented</a><ul>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#reworking-footnotes" id="id44">Reworking Footnotes</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#syntax-for-questions-answers" id="id45">Syntax for Questions & Answers</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#tabled" id="id46">Tabled</a><ul>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#reworking-explicit-markup-round-2" id="id47">Reworking Explicit Markup (Round 2)</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#to-do" id="id48">To Do</a><ul>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#nested-inline-markup" id="id49">Nested Inline Markup</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#index-entries-indexes" id="id50">Index Entries & Indexes</a><ul>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#from-2002-06-24-docutils-develop-posts" id="id51">from 2002-06-24 docutils-develop posts</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#or-not-to-do" id="id52">... Or Not To Do?</a><ul>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#compound-enumerated-lists" id="id53">Compound Enumerated Lists</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#indented-lists" id="id54">Indented Lists</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#sloppy-indentation-of-list-items" id="id55">Sloppy Indentation of List Items</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#lazy-indentation-of-list-items" id="id56">Lazy Indentation of List Items</a><ul>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#david-s-idea-for-lazy-indentation" id="id57">David's Idea for Lazy Indentation</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#multiple-roles-in-interpreted-text" id="id58">Multiple Roles in Interpreted Text</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#parameterized-interpreted-text" id="id59">Parameterized Interpreted Text</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#syntax-for-interpreted-text-role-bindings" id="id60">Syntax for Interpreted Text Role Bindings</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#character-processing" id="id61">Character Processing</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#page-or-line-breaks" id="id62">Page Or Line Breaks</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#superscript-markup" id="id63">Superscript Markup</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#code-execution" id="id64">Code Execution</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#encoding-directive" id="id65"><tt class="docutils literal">encoding</tt> Directive</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#support-for-annotations" id="id66">Support for Annotations</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#term-role" id="id67"><tt class="docutils literal">term</tt> Role</a></li>
<li><a class="reference internal" href="#object-references" id="id68">Object references</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="section" id="implemented">
<h1><a class="toc-backref" href="#id24">Implemented</a></h1>
<div class="section" id="field-lists">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id25">Field Lists</a></h2>
<p>Prior to the syntax for field lists being finalized, several
alternatives were proposed.</p>
<ol class="arabic">
<li><p class="first">Unadorned <a class="reference external" href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc822.txt">RFC822</a> everywhere:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Author: Me
Version: 1
</pre>
<p>Advantages: clean, precedent (RFC822-compliant). Disadvantage:
ambiguous (these paragraphs are a prime example).</p>
<p>Conclusion: rejected.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Special case: use unadorned <a class="reference external" href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc822.txt">RFC822</a> for the very first or very last
text block of a document:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
"""
Author: Me
Version: 1
The rest of the document...
"""
</pre>
<p>Advantages: clean, precedent (RFC822-compliant). Disadvantages:
special case, flat (unnested) field lists only, still ambiguous:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
"""
Usage: cmdname [options] arg1 arg2 ...
We obviously *don't* want the like above to be interpreted as a
field list item. Or do we?
"""
</pre>
<p>Conclusion: rejected for the general case, accepted for specific
contexts (PEPs, email).</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Use a directive:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. fields::
Author: Me
Version: 1
</pre>
<p>Advantages: explicit and unambiguous, RFC822-compliant.
Disadvantage: cumbersome.</p>
<p>Conclusion: rejected for the general case (but such a directive
could certainly be written).</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Use Javadoc-style:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
@Author: Me
@Version: 1
@param a: integer
</pre>
<p>Advantages: unambiguous, precedent, flexible. Disadvantages:
non-intuitive, ugly, not RFC822-compliant.</p>
<p>Conclusion: rejected.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Use leading colons:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
:Author: Me
:Version: 1
</pre>
<p>Advantages: unambiguous, obvious (<em>almost</em> RFC822-compliant),
flexible, perhaps even elegant. Disadvantages: no precedent, not
quite RFC822-compliant.</p>
<p>Conclusion: accepted!</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Use double colons:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Author:: Me
Version:: 1
</pre>
<p>Advantages: unambiguous, obvious? (<em>almost</em> RFC822-compliant),
flexible, similar to syntax already used for literal blocks and
directives. Disadvantages: no precedent, not quite
RFC822-compliant, similar to syntax already used for literal blocks
and directives.</p>
<p>Conclusion: rejected because of the syntax similarity & conflicts.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Why is RFC822 compliance important? It's a universal Internet
standard, and super obvious. Also, I'd like to support the PEP format
(ulterior motive: get PEPs to use reStructuredText as their standard).
But it <em>would</em> be easy to get used to an alternative (easy even to
convert PEPs; probably harder to convert python-deviants ;-).</p>
<p>Unfortunately, without well-defined context (such as in email headers:
RFC822 only applies before any blank lines), the RFC822 format is
ambiguous. It is very common in ordinary text. To implement field
lists unambiguously, we need explicit syntax.</p>
<p>The following question was posed in a footnote:</p>
<blockquote>
Should "bibliographic field lists" be defined at the parser level,
or at the DPS transformation level? In other words, are they
reStructuredText-specific, or would they also be applicable to
another (many/every other?) syntax?</blockquote>
<p>The answer is that bibliographic fields are a
reStructuredText-specific markup convention. Other syntaxes may
implement the bibliographic elements explicitly. For example, there
would be no need for such a transformation for an XML-based markup
syntax.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="interpreted-text-roles">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id26">Interpreted Text "Roles"</a></h2>
<p>The original purpose of interpreted text was as a mechanism for
descriptive markup, to describe the nature or role of a word or
phrase. For example, in XML we could say "<function>len</function>"
to mark up "len" as a function. It is envisaged that within Python
docstrings (inline documentation in Python module source files, the
primary market for reStructuredText) the role of a piece of
interpreted text can be inferred implicitly from the context of the
docstring within the program source. For other applications, however,
the role may have to be indicated explicitly.</p>
<p>Interpreted text is enclosed in single backquotes (`).</p>
<ol class="arabic">
<li><p class="first">Initially, it was proposed that an explicit role could be indicated
as a word or phrase within the enclosing backquotes:</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">As a prefix, separated by a colon and whitespace:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
`role: interpreted text`
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">As a suffix, separated by whitespace and a colon:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
`interpreted text :role`
</pre>
</li>
</ul>
<p>There are problems with the initial approach:</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>There could be ambiguity with interpreted text containing colons.
For example, an index entry of "Mission: Impossible" would
require a backslash-escaped colon.</li>
<li>The explicit role is descriptive markup, not content, and will
not be visible in the processed output. Putting it inside the
backquotes doesn't feel right; the <em>role</em> isn't being quoted.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Tony Ibbs suggested that the role be placed outside the
backquotes:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
role:`prefix` or `suffix`:role
</pre>
<p>This removes the embedded-colons ambiguity, but limits the role
identifier to be a single word (whitespace would be illegal).
Since roles are not meant to be visible after processing, the lack
of whitespace support is not important.</p>
<p>The suggested syntax remains ambiguous with respect to ratios and
some writing styles. For example, suppose there is a "signal"
identifier, and we write:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
...calculate the `signal`:noise ratio.
</pre>
<p>"noise" looks like a role.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">As an improvement on #2, we can bracket the role with colons:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
:role:`prefix` or `suffix`:role:
</pre>
<p>This syntax is similar to that of field lists, which is fine since
both are doing similar things: describing.</p>
<p>This is the syntax chosen for reStructuredText.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Another alternative is two colons instead of one:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
role::`prefix` or `suffix`::role
</pre>
<p>But this is used for analogies ("A:B::C:D": "A is to B as C is to
D").</p>
<p>Both alternative #2 and #4 lack delimiters on both sides of the
role, making it difficult to parse (by the reader).</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Some kind of bracketing could be used:</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">Parentheses:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
(role)`prefix` or `suffix`(role)
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Braces:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
{role}`prefix` or `suffix`{role}
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Square brackets:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
[role]`prefix` or `suffix`[role]
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Angle brackets:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
<role>`prefix` or `suffix`<role>
</pre>
<p>(The overlap of *ML tags with angle brackets would be too
confusing and precludes their use.)</p>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Syntax #3 was chosen for reStructuredText.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="comments">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id27">Comments</a></h2>
<p>A problem with comments (actually, with all indented constructs) is
that they cannot be followed by an indented block -- a block quote --
without swallowing it up.</p>
<p>I thought that perhaps comments should be one-liners only. But would
this mean that footnotes, hyperlink targets, and directives must then
also be one-liners? Not a good solution.</p>
<p>Tony Ibbs suggested a "comment" directive. I added that we could
limit a comment to a single text block, and that a "multi-block
comment" could use "comment-start" and "comment-end" directives. This
would remove the indentation incompatibility. A "comment" directive
automatically suggests "footnote" and (hyperlink) "target" directives
as well. This could go on forever! Bad choice.</p>
<p>Garth Kidd suggested that an "empty comment", a ".." explicit markup
start with nothing on the first line (except possibly whitespace) and
a blank line immediately following, could serve as an "unindent". An
empty comment does <strong>not</strong> swallow up indented blocks following it,
so block quotes are safe. "A tiny but practical wart." Accepted.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="anonymous-hyperlinks">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id28">Anonymous Hyperlinks</a></h2>
<p>Alan Jaffray came up with this idea, along with the following syntax:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Search the `Python DOC-SIG mailing list archives`{}_.
.. _: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/
</pre>
<p>The idea is sound and useful. I suggested a "double underscore"
syntax:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Search the `Python DOC-SIG mailing list archives`__.
.. __: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/
</pre>
<p>But perhaps single underscores are okay? The syntax looks better, but
the hyperlink itself doesn't explicitly say "anonymous":</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Search the `Python DOC-SIG mailing list archives`_.
.. _: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/
</pre>
<p>Mixing anonymous and named hyperlinks becomes confusing. The order of
targets is not significant for named hyperlinks, but it is for
anonymous hyperlinks:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Hyperlinks: anonymous_, named_, and another anonymous_.
.. _named: named
.. _: anonymous1
.. _: anonymous2
</pre>
<p>Without the extra syntax of double underscores, determining which
hyperlink references are anonymous may be difficult. We'd have to
check which references don't have corresponding targets, and match
those up with anonymous targets. Keeping to a simple consistent
ordering (as with auto-numbered footnotes) seems simplest.</p>
<p>reStructuredText will use the explicit double-underscore syntax for
anonymous hyperlinks. An alternative (see <a class="reference internal" href="#reworking-explicit-markup-round-1">Reworking Explicit Markup
(Round 1)</a> below) for the somewhat awkward ".. __:" syntax is "__":</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
An anonymous__ reference.
__ http://anonymous
</pre>
</div>
<div class="section" id="reworking-explicit-markup-round-1">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id29">Reworking Explicit Markup (Round 1)</a></h2>
<p>Alan Jaffray came up with the idea of <a class="reference internal" href="#anonymous-hyperlinks">anonymous hyperlinks</a>, added
to reStructuredText. Subsequently it was asserted that hyperlinks
(especially anonymous hyperlinks) would play an increasingly important
role in reStructuredText documents, and therefore they require a
simpler and more concise syntax. This prompted a review of the
current and proposed explicit markup syntaxes with regards to
improving usability.</p>
<ol class="arabic">
<li><p class="first">Original syntax:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. _blah: internal hyperlink target
.. _blah: http://somewhere external hyperlink target
.. _blah: blahblah_ indirect hyperlink target
.. __: anonymous internal target
.. __: http://somewhere anonymous external target
.. __: blahblah_ anonymous indirect target
.. [blah] http://somewhere footnote
.. blah:: http://somewhere directive
.. blah: http://somewhere comment
</pre>
<div class="note">
<p class="first admonition-title">Note</p>
<p class="last">The comment text was intentionally made to look like a hyperlink
target.</p>
</div>
<p>Origins:</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Except for the colon (a delimiter necessary to allow for
phrase-links), hyperlink target <tt class="docutils literal">.. _blah:</tt> comes from Setext.</li>
<li>Comment syntax from Setext.</li>
<li>Footnote syntax from StructuredText ("named links").</li>
<li>Directives and anonymous hyperlinks original to reStructuredText.</li>
</ul>
<p>Advantages:</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Consistent explicit markup indicator: "..".</li>
<li>Consistent hyperlink syntax: ".. _" & ":".</li>
</ul>
<p>Disadvantages:</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Anonymous target markup is awkward: ".. __:".</li>
<li>The explicit markup indicator ("..") is excessively overloaded?</li>
<li>Comment text is limited (can't look like a footnote, hyperlink,
or directive). But this is probably not important.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Alan Jaffray's proposed syntax #1:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
__ _blah internal hyperlink target
__ blah: http://somewhere external hyperlink target
__ blah: blahblah_ indirect hyperlink target
__ anonymous internal target
__ http://somewhere anonymous external target
__ blahblah_ anonymous indirect target
__ [blah] http://somewhere footnote
.. blah:: http://somewhere directive
.. blah: http://somewhere comment
</pre>
<p>The hyperlink-connoted underscores have become first-level syntax.</p>
<p>Advantages:</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Anonymous targets are simpler.</li>
<li>All hyperlink targets are one character shorter.</li>
</ul>
<p>Disadvantages:</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">Inconsistent internal hyperlink targets. Unlike all other named
hyperlink targets, there's no colon. There's an extra leading
underscore, but we can't drop it because without it, "blah" looks
like a relative URI. Unless we restore the colon:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
__ blah: internal hyperlink target
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Obtrusive markup?</p>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Alan Jaffray's proposed syntax #2:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. _blah internal hyperlink target
.. blah: http://somewhere external hyperlink target
.. blah: blahblah_ indirect hyperlink target
.. anonymous internal target
.. http://somewhere anonymous external target
.. blahblah_ anonymous indirect target
.. [blah] http://somewhere footnote
!! blah: http://somewhere directive
## blah: http://somewhere comment
</pre>
<p>Leading underscores have been (almost) replaced by "..", while
comments and directives have gained their own syntax.</p>
<p>Advantages:</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Anonymous hyperlinks are simpler.</li>
<li>Unique syntax for comments. Connotation of "comment" from
some programming languages (including our favorite).</li>
<li>Unique syntax for directives. Connotation of "action!".</li>
</ul>
<p>Disadvantages:</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">Inconsistent internal hyperlink targets. Again, unlike all other
named hyperlink targets, there's no colon. There's a leading
underscore, matching the trailing underscores of references,
which no other hyperlink targets have. We can't drop that one
leading underscore though: without it, "blah" looks like a
relative URI. Again, unless we restore the colon:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. blah: internal hyperlink target
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">All (except for internal) hyperlink targets lack their leading
underscores, losing the "hyperlink" connotation.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Obtrusive syntax for comments. Alternatives:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
;; blah: http://somewhere
(also comment syntax in Lisp & others)
,, blah: http://somewhere
("comma comma": sounds like "comment"!)
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Iffy syntax for directives. Alternatives?</p>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Tony Ibbs' proposed syntax:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. _blah: internal hyperlink target
.. _blah: http://somewhere external hyperlink target
.. _blah: blahblah_ indirect hyperlink target
.. anonymous internal target
.. http://somewhere anonymous external target
.. blahblah_ anonymous indirect target
.. [blah] http://somewhere footnote
.. blah:: http://somewhere directive
.. blah: http://somewhere comment
</pre>
<p>This is the same as the current syntax, except for anonymous
targets which drop their "__: ".</p>
<p>Advantage:</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Anonymous targets are simpler.</li>
</ul>
<p>Disadvantages:</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Anonymous targets lack their leading underscores, losing the
"hyperlink" connotation.</li>
<li>Anonymous targets are almost indistinguishable from comments.
(Better to know "up front".)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p class="first">David Goodger's proposed syntax: Perhaps going back to one of
Alan's earlier suggestions might be the best solution. How about
simply adding "__ " as a synonym for ".. __: " in the original
syntax? These would become equivalent:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. __: anonymous internal target
.. __: http://somewhere anonymous external target
.. __: blahblah_ anonymous indirect target
__ anonymous internal target
__ http://somewhere anonymous external target
__ blahblah_ anonymous indirect target
</pre>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Alternative 5 has been adopted.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="backquotes-in-phrase-links">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id30">Backquotes in Phrase-Links</a></h2>
<p>[From a 2001-06-05 Doc-SIG post in reply to questions from Doug
Hellmann.]</p>
<p>The first draft of the spec, posted to the Doc-SIG in November 2000,
used square brackets for phrase-links. I changed my mind because:</p>
<ol class="arabic simple">
<li>In the first draft, I had already decided on single-backquotes for
inline literal text.</li>
<li>However, I wanted to minimize the necessity for backslash escapes,
for example when quoting Python repr-equivalent syntax that uses
backquotes.</li>
<li>The processing of identifiers (function/method/attribute/module
etc. names) into hyperlinks is a useful feature. PyDoc recognizes
identifiers heuristically, but it doesn't take much imagination to
come up with counter-examples where PyDoc's heuristics would result
in embarassing failure. I wanted to do it deterministically, and
that called for syntax. I called this construct "interpreted
text".</li>
<li>Leveraging off the <tt class="docutils literal"><span class="pre">*emphasis*/**strong**</span></tt> syntax, lead to the
idea of using double-backquotes as syntax.</li>
<li>I worked out some rules for inline markup recognition.</li>
<li>In combination with #5, double backquotes lent themselves to inline
literals, neatly satisfying #2, minimizing backslash escapes. In
fact, the spec says that no interpretation of any kind is done
within double-backquote inline literal text; backslashes do <em>no</em>
escaping within literal text.</li>
<li>Single backquotes are then freed up for interpreted text.</li>
<li>I already had square brackets required for footnote references.</li>
<li>Since interpreted text will typically turn into hyperlinks, it was
a natural fit to use backquotes as the phrase-quoting syntax for
trailing-underscore hyperlinks.</li>
</ol>
<p>The original inspiration for the trailing underscore hyperlink syntax
was Setext. But for phrases Setext used a very cumbersome
<tt class="docutils literal">underscores_between_words_like_this_</tt> syntax.</p>
<p>The underscores can be viewed as if they were right-pointing arrows:
<tt class="docutils literal"><span class="pre">--></span></tt>. So <tt class="docutils literal">hyperlink_</tt> points away from the reference, and
<tt class="docutils literal">.. _hyperlink:</tt> points toward the target.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="substitution-mechanism">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id31">Substitution Mechanism</a></h2>
<p>Substitutions arose out of a Doc-SIG thread begun on 2001-10-28 by
Alan Jaffray, "reStructuredText inline markup". It reminded me of a
missing piece of the reStructuredText puzzle, first referred to in my
contribution to "Documentation markup & processing / PEPs" (Doc-SIG
2001-06-21).</p>
<p>Substitutions allow the power and flexibility of directives to be
shared by inline text. They are a way to allow arbitrarily complex
inline objects, while keeping the details out of the flow of text.
They are the equivalent of SGML/XML's named entities. For example, an
inline image (using reference syntax alternative 4d (vertical bars)
and definition alternative 3, the alternatives chosen for inclusion in
the spec):</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
The |biohazard| symbol must be used on containers used to dispose
of medical waste.
.. |biohazard| image:: biohazard.png
[height=20 width=20]
</pre>
<p>The <tt class="docutils literal">|biohazard|</tt> substitution reference will be replaced in-line by
whatever the <tt class="docutils literal">.. |biohazard|</tt> substitution definition generates (in
this case, an image). A substitution definition contains the
substitution text bracketed with vertical bars, followed by a an
embedded inline-compatible directive, such as "image". A transform is
required to complete the substitution.</p>
<p>Syntax alternatives for the reference:</p>
<ol class="arabic">
<li><p class="first">Use the existing interpreted text syntax, with a predefined role
such as "sub":</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
The `biohazard`:sub: symbol...
</pre>
<p>Advantages: existing syntax, explicit. Disadvantages: verbose,
obtrusive.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Use a variant of the interpreted text syntax, with a new suffix
akin to the underscore in phrase-link references:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
(a) `name`@
(b) `name`#
(c) `name`&
(d) `name`/
(e) `name`<
(f) `name`::
(g) `name`:
</pre>
<p>Due to incompatibility with other constructs and ordinary text
usage, (f) and (g) are not possible.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Use interpreted text syntax with a fixed internal format:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
(a) `:name:`
(b) `name:`
(c) `name::`
(d) `::name::`
(e) `%name%`
(f) `#name#`
(g) `/name/`
(h) `&name&`
(i) `|name|`
(j) `[name]`
(k) `<name>`
(l) `&name;`
(m) `'name'`
</pre>
<p>To avoid ML confusion (k) and (l) are definitely out. Square
brackets (j) won't work in the target (the substitution definition
would be indistinguishable from a footnote).</p>
<p>The <tt class="docutils literal">`/name/`</tt> syntax (g) is reminiscent of "s/find/sub"
substitution syntax in ed-like languages. However, it may have a
misleading association with regexps, and looks like an absolute
POSIX path. (i) is visually equivalent and lacking the
connotations.</p>
<p>A disadvantage of all of these is that they limit interpreted text,
albeit only slightly.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Use specialized syntax, something new:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
(a) #name#
(b) @name@
(c) /name/
(d) |name|
(e) <<name>>
(f) //name//
(g) ||name||
(h) ^name^
(i) [[name]]
(j) ~name~
(k) !name!
(l) =name=
(m) ?name?
(n) >name<
</pre>
<p>"#" (a) and "@" (b) are obtrusive. "/" (c) without backquotes
looks just like a POSIX path; it is likely for such usage to appear
in text.</p>
<p>"|" (d) and "^" (h) are feasible.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Redefine the trailing underscore syntax. See definition syntax
alternative 4, below.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Syntax alternatives for the definition:</p>
<ol class="arabic">
<li><p class="first">Use the existing directive syntax, with a predefined directive such
as "sub". It contains a further embedded directive resolving to an
inline-compatible object:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. sub:: biohazard
.. image:: biohazard.png
[height=20 width=20]
.. sub:: parrot
That bird wouldn't *voom* if you put 10,000,000 volts
through it!
</pre>
<p>The advantages and disadvantages are the same as in inline
alternative 1.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Use syntax as in #1, but with an embedded directivecompressed:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. sub:: biohazard image:: biohazard.png
[height=20 width=20]
</pre>
<p>This is a bit better than alternative 1, but still too much.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Use a variant of directive syntax, incorporating the substitution
text, obviating the need for a special "sub" directive name. If we
assume reference alternative 4d (vertical bars), the matching
definition would look like this:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. |biohazard| image:: biohazard.png
[height=20 width=20]
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">(Suggested by Alan Jaffray on Doc-SIG from 2001-11-06.)</p>
<p>Instead of adding new syntax, redefine the trailing underscore
syntax to mean "substitution reference" instead of "hyperlink
reference". Alan's example:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
I had lunch with Jonathan_ today. We talked about Zope_.
.. _Jonathan: lj [user=jhl]
.. _Zope: http://www.zope.org/
</pre>
<p>A problem with the proposed syntax is that URIs which look like
simple reference names (alphanum plus ".", "-", "_") would be
indistinguishable from substitution directive names. A more
consistent syntax would be:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
I had lunch with Jonathan_ today. We talked about Zope_.
.. _Jonathan: lj:: user=jhl
.. _Zope: http://www.zope.org/
</pre>
<p>(<tt class="docutils literal">::</tt> after <tt class="docutils literal">.. _Jonathan: lj</tt>.)</p>
<p>The "Zope" target is a simple external hyperlink, but the
"Jonathan" target contains a directive. Alan proposed is that the
reference text be replaced by whatever the referenced directive
(the "directive target") produces. A directive reference becomes a
hyperlink reference if the contents of the directive target resolve
to a hyperlink. If the directive target resolves to an icon, the
reference is replaced by an inline icon. If the directive target
resolves to a hyperlink, the directive reference becomes a
hyperlink reference.</p>
<p>This seems too indirect and complicated for easy comprehension.</p>
<p>The reference in the text will sometimes become a link, sometimes
not. Sometimes the reference text will remain, sometimes not. We
don't know <em>at the reference</em>:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
This is a `hyperlink reference`_; its text will remain.
This is an `inline icon`_; its text will disappear.
</pre>
<p>That's a problem.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>The syntax that has been incorporated into the spec and parser is
reference alternative 4d with definition alternative 3:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
The |biohazard| symbol...
.. |biohazard| image:: biohazard.png
[height=20 width=20]
</pre>
<p>We can also combine substitution references with hyperlink references,
by appending a "_" (named hyperlink reference) or "__" (anonymous
hyperlink reference) suffix to the substitution reference. This
allows us to click on an image-link:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
The |biohazard|_ symbol...
.. |biohazard| image:: biohazard.png
[height=20 width=20]
.. _biohazard: http://www.cdc.gov/
</pre>
<p>There have been several suggestions for the naming of these
constructs, originally called "substitution references" and
"substitutions".</p>
<ol class="arabic simple">
<li>Candidate names for the reference construct:<ol class="loweralpha">
<li>substitution reference</li>
<li>tagging reference</li>
<li>inline directive reference</li>
<li>directive reference</li>
<li>indirect inline directive reference</li>
<li>inline directive placeholder</li>
<li>inline directive insertion reference</li>
<li>directive insertion reference</li>
<li>insertion reference</li>
<li>directive macro reference</li>
<li>macro reference</li>
<li>substitution directive reference</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>Candidate names for the definition construct:<ol class="loweralpha">
<li>substitution</li>
<li>substitution directive</li>
<li>tag</li>
<li>tagged directive</li>
<li>directive target</li>
<li>inline directive</li>
<li>inline directive definition</li>
<li>referenced directive</li>
<li>indirect directive</li>
<li>indirect directive definition</li>
<li>directive definition</li>
<li>indirect inline directive</li>
<li>named directive definition</li>
<li>inline directive insertion definition</li>
<li>directive insertion definition</li>
<li>insertion definition</li>
<li>insertion directive</li>
<li>substitution definition</li>
<li>directive macro definition</li>
<li>macro definition</li>
<li>substitution directive definition</li>
<li>substitution definition</li>
</ol>
</li>
</ol>
<p>"Inline directive reference" (1c) seems to be an appropriate term at
first, but the term "inline" is redundant in the case of the
reference. Its counterpart "inline directive definition" (2g) is
awkward, because the directive definition itself is not inline.</p>
<p>"Directive reference" (1d) and "directive definition" (2k) are too
vague. "Directive definition" could be used to refer to any
directive, not just those used for inline substitutions.</p>
<p>One meaning of the term "macro" (1k, 2s, 2t) is too
programming-language-specific. Also, macros are typically simple text
substitution mechanisms: the text is substituted first and evaluated
later. reStructuredText substitution definitions are evaluated in
place at parse time and substituted afterwards.</p>
<p>"Insertion" (1h, 1i, 2n-2q) is almost right, but it implies that
something new is getting added rather than one construct being
replaced by another.</p>
<p>Which brings us back to "substitution". The overall best names are
"substitution reference" (1a) and "substitution definition" (2v). A
long way to go to add one word!</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="inline-external-targets">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id32">Inline External Targets</a></h2>
<p>Currently reStructuredText has two hyperlink syntax variations:</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">Named hyperlinks:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
This is a named reference_ of one word ("reference"). Here is
a `phrase reference`_. Phrase references may even cross `line
boundaries`_.
.. _reference: http://www.example.org/reference/
.. _phrase reference: http://www.example.org/phrase_reference/
.. _line boundaries: http://www.example.org/line_boundaries/
</pre>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Advantages:<ul>
<li>The plaintext is readable.</li>
<li>Each target may be reused multiple times (e.g., just write
<tt class="docutils literal">"reference_"</tt> again).</li>
<li>No syncronized ordering of references and targets is necessary.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Disadvantages:<ul>
<li>The reference text must be repeated as target names; could lead
to mistakes.</li>
<li>The target URLs may be located far from the references, and hard
to find in the plaintext.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Anonymous hyperlinks (in current reStructuredText):</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
This is an anonymous reference__. Here is an anonymous
`phrase reference`__. Phrase references may even cross `line
boundaries`__.
__ http://www.example.org/reference/
__ http://www.example.org/phrase_reference/
__ http://www.example.org/line_boundaries/
</pre>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Advantages:<ul>
<li>The plaintext is readable.</li>
<li>The reference text does not have to be repeated.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Disadvantages:<ul>
<li>References and targets must be kept in sync.</li>
<li>Targets cannot be reused.</li>
<li>The target URLs may be located far from the references.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>For comparison and historical background, StructuredText also has two
syntaxes for hyperlinks:</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">First, <tt class="docutils literal">"reference <span class="pre">text":URL</span></tt>:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
This is a "reference":http://www.example.org/reference/
of one word ("reference"). Here is a "phrase
reference":http://www.example.org/phrase_reference/.
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Second, <tt class="docutils literal">"reference text", <span class="pre">http://example.com/absolute_URL</span></tt>:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
This is a "reference", http://www.example.org/reference/
of one word ("reference"). Here is a "phrase reference",
http://www.example.org/phrase_reference/.
</pre>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Both syntaxes share advantages and disadvantages:</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Advantages:<ul>
<li>The target is specified immediately adjacent to the reference.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Disadvantages:<ul>
<li>Poor plaintext readability.</li>
<li>Targets cannot be reused.</li>
<li>Both syntaxes use double quotes, common in ordinary text.</li>
<li>In the first syntax, the URL and the last word are stuck
together, exacerbating the line wrap problem.</li>
<li>The second syntax is too magical; text could easily be written
that way by accident (although only absolute URLs are recognized
here, perhaps because of the potential for ambiguity).</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>A new type of "inline external hyperlink" has been proposed.</p>
<ol class="arabic">
<li><p class="first">On 2002-06-28, Simon Budig <a class="reference external" href="http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/2002-June/002648.html">proposed</a> a new syntax for
reStructuredText hyperlinks:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
This is a reference_(http://www.example.org/reference/) of one
word ("reference"). Here is a `phrase
reference`_(http://www.example.org/phrase_reference/). Are
these examples, (single-underscore), named? If so, `anonymous
references`__(http://www.example.org/anonymous/) using two
underscores would probably be preferable.
</pre>
<p>The syntax, advantages, and disadvantages are similar to those of
StructuredText.</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Advantages:<ul>
<li>The target is specified immediately adjacent to the reference.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Disadvantages:<ul>
<li>Poor plaintext readability.</li>
<li>Targets cannot be reused (unless named, but the semantics are
unclear).</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Problems:<ul>
<li>The <tt class="docutils literal">"`ref`_(URL)"</tt> syntax forces the last word of the
reference text to be joined to the URL, making a potentially
very long word that can't be wrapped (URLs can be very long).
The reference and the URL should be separate. This is a
symptom of the following point:</li>
<li>The syntax produces a single compound construct made up of two
equally important parts, <em>with syntax in the middle</em>, <em>between</em>
the reference and the target. This is unprecedented in
reStructuredText.</li>
<li>The "inline hyperlink" text is <em>not</em> a named reference (there's
no lookup by name), so it shouldn't look like one.</li>
<li>According to the IETF standards RFC 2396 and RFC 2732,
parentheses are legal URI characters and curly braces are legal
email characters, making their use prohibitively difficult.</li>
<li>The named/anonymous semantics are unclear.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p class="first">After an <a class="reference external" href="http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/2002-July/002670.html">analysis</a> of the syntax of (1) above, we came up with the
following compromise syntax:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
This is an anonymous reference__
__<http://www.example.org/reference/> of one word
("reference"). Here is a `phrase reference`__
__<http://www.example.org/phrase_reference/>. `Named
references`_ _<http://www.example.org/anonymous/> use single
underscores.
</pre>
<p>The syntax builds on that of the existing "inline internal
targets": <tt class="docutils literal">an _`inline internal target`.</tt></p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Advantages:<ul>
<li>The target is specified immediately adjacent to the reference,
improving maintainability:<ul>
<li>References and targets are easily kept in sync.</li>
<li>The reference text does not have to be repeated.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>The construct is executed in two parts: references identical to
existing references, and targets that are new but not too big a
stretch from current syntax.</li>
<li>There's overwhelming precedent for quoting URLs with angle
brackets <a class="footnote-reference" href="#id4" id="id3">[1]</a>.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Disadvantages:<ul>
<li>Poor plaintext readability.</li>
<li>Lots of "line noise".</li>
<li>Targets cannot be reused (unless named; see below).</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>To alleviate the readability issue slightly, we could allow the
target to appear later, such as after the end of the sentence:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
This is a named reference__ of one word ("reference").
__<http://www.example.org/reference/> Here is a `phrase
reference`__. __<http://www.example.org/phrase_reference/>
</pre>
<p>Problem: this could only work for one reference at a time
(reference/target pairs must be proximate [refA trgA refB trgB],
not interleaved [refA refB trgA trgB] or nested [refA refB trgB
trgA]). This variation is too problematic; references and inline
external targets will have to be kept imediately adjacent (see (3)
below).</p>
<p>The <tt class="docutils literal">"reference__ __<target>"</tt> syntax is actually for "anonymous
inline external targets", emphasized by the double underscores. It
follows that single trailing and leading underscores would lead to
<em>implicitly named</em> inline external targets. This would allow the
reuse of targets by name. So after <tt class="docutils literal">"reference_ _<target>"</tt>,
another <tt class="docutils literal">"reference_"</tt> would point to the same target.</p>
<table class="docutils footnote" frame="void" id="id4" rules="none">
<colgroup><col class="label" /><col /></colgroup>
<tbody valign="top">
<tr><td class="label"><a class="fn-backref" href="#id3">[1]</a></td><td><p class="first">From RFC 2396 (URI syntax):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The angle-bracket "<" and ">" and double-quote (")
characters are excluded [from URIs] because they are often
used as the delimiters around URI in text documents and
protocol fields.</p>
<p>Using <> angle brackets around each URI is especially
recommended as a delimiting style for URI that contain
whitespace.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>From RFC 822 (email headers):</p>
<blockquote class="last">
<p>Angle brackets ("<" and ">") are generally used to indicate
the presence of a one machine-usable reference (e.g.,
delimiting mailboxes), possibly including source-routing to
the machine.</p>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</li>
<li><p class="first">If it is best for references and inline external targets to be
immediately adjacent, then they might as well be integrated.
Here's an alternative syntax embedding the target URL in the
reference:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
This is an anonymous `reference <http://www.example.org
/reference/>`__ of one word ("reference"). Here is a `phrase
reference <http://www.example.org/phrase_reference/>`__.
</pre>
<p>Advantages and disadvantages are similar to those in (2).
Readability is still an issue, but the syntax is a bit less
heavyweight (reduced line noise). Backquotes are required, even
for one-word references; the target URL is included within the
reference text, forcing a phrase context.</p>
<p>We'll call this variant "embedded URIs".</p>
<p>Problem: how to refer to a title like "HTML Anchors: <a>" (which
ends with an HTML/SGML/XML tag)? We could either require more
syntax on the target (like <tt class="docutils literal">"`reference text
<span class="pre">__<http://example.com/>`__"</span></tt>), or require the odd conflicting
title to be escaped (like <tt class="docutils literal">"`HTML Anchors: <span class="pre">\<a>`__"</span></tt>). The
latter seems preferable, and not too onerous.</p>
<p>Similarly to (2) above, a single trailing underscore would convert
the reference & inline external target from anonymous to implicitly
named, allowing reuse of targets by name.</p>
<p>I think this is the least objectionable of the syntax alternatives.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Other syntax variations have been proposed (by Brett Cannon and Benja
Fallenstein):</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
`phrase reference`->http://www.example.com
`phrase reference`@http://www.example.com
`phrase reference`__ ->http://www.example.com
`phrase reference` [-> http://www.example.com]
`phrase reference`__ [-> http://www.example.com]
`phrase reference` <http://www.example.com>_
</pre>
<p>None of these variations are clearly superior to #3 above. Some have
problems that exclude their use.</p>
<p>With any kind of inline external target syntax it comes down to the
conflict between maintainability and plaintext readability. I don't
see a major problem with reStructuredText's maintainability, and I
don't want to sacrifice plaintext readability to "improve" it.</p>
<p>The proponents of inline external targets want them for easily
maintainable web pages. The arguments go something like this:</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">Named hyperlinks are difficult to maintain because the reference
text is duplicated as the target name.</p>
<p>To which I said, "So use anonymous hyperlinks."</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Anonymous hyperlinks are difficult to maintain becuase the
references and targets have to be kept in sync.</p>
<p>"So keep the targets close to the references, grouped after each
paragraph. Maintenance is trivial."</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">But targets grouped after paragraphs break the flow of text.</p>
<p>"Surely less than URLs embedded in the text! And if the intent is
to produce web pages, not readable plaintext, then who cares about
the flow of text?"</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Many participants have voiced their objections to the proposed syntax:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Garth Kidd: "I strongly prefer the current way of doing it.
Inline is spectactularly messy, IMHO."</p>
<p>Tony Ibbs: "I vehemently agree... that the inline alternatives
being suggested look messy - there are/were good reasons they've
been taken out... I don't believe I would gain from the new
syntaxes."</p>
<p>Paul Moore: "I agree as well. The proposed syntax is far too
punctuation-heavy, and any of the alternatives discussed are
ambiguous or too subtle."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Others have voiced their support:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>fantasai: "I agree with Simon. In many cases, though certainly
not in all, I find parenthesizing the url in plain text flows
better than relegating it to a footnote."</p>
<p>Ken Manheimer: "I'd like to weigh in requesting some kind of easy,
direct inline reference link."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(Interesting that those <em>against</em> the proposal have been using
reStructuredText for a while, and those <em>for</em> the proposal are either
new to the list ["fantasai", background unknown] or longtime
StructuredText users [Ken Manheimer].)</p>
<p>I was initially ambivalent/against the proposed "inline external
targets". I value reStructuredText's readability very highly, and
although the proposed syntax offers convenience, I don't know if the
convenience is worth the cost in ugliness. Does the proposed syntax
compromise readability too much, or should the choice be left up to
the author? Perhaps if the syntax is <em>allowed</em> but its use strongly
<em>discouraged</em>, for aesthetic/readability reasons?</p>
<p>After a great deal of thought and much input from users, I've decided
that there are reasonable use cases for this construct. The
documentation should strongly caution against its use in most
situations, recommending independent block-level targets instead.
Syntax #3 above ("embedded URIs") will be used.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="doctree-representation-of-transitions">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id33">Doctree Representation of Transitions</a></h2>
<p>(Although not reStructuredText-specific, this section fits best in
this document.)</p>
<p>Having added the "horizontal rule" construct to the <a class="reference external" href="../../ref/rst/restructuredtext.html">reStructuredText
Markup Specification</a>, a decision had to be made as to how to reflect
the construct in the implementation of the document tree. Given this
source:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Document
========
Paragraph 1
--------
Paragraph 2
</pre>
<p>The horizontal rule indicates a "transition" (in prose terms) or the
start of a new "division". Before implementation, the parsed document
tree would be:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
<document>
<section names="document">
<title>
Document
<paragraph>
Paragraph 1
-------- <--- error here
<paragraph>
Paragraph 2
</pre>
<p>There are several possibilities for the implementation:</p>
<ol class="arabic">
<li><p class="first">Implement horizontal rules as "divisions" or segments. A
"division" is a title-less, non-hierarchical section. The first
try at an implementation looked like this:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
<document>
<section names="document">
<title>
Document
<paragraph>
Paragraph 1
<division>
<paragraph>
Paragraph 2
</pre>
<p>But the two paragraphs are really at the same level; they shouldn't
appear to be at different levels. There's really an invisible
"first division". The horizontal rule splits the document body
into two segments, which should be treated uniformly.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Treating "divisions" uniformly brings us to the second
possibility:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
<document>
<section names="document">
<title>
Document
<division>
<paragraph>
Paragraph 1
<division>
<paragraph>
Paragraph 2
</pre>
<p>With this change, documents and sections will directly contain
divisions and sections, but not body elements. Only divisions will
directly contain body elements. Even without a horizontal rule
anywhere, the body elements of a document or section would be
contained within a division element. This makes the document tree
deeper. This is similar to the way <a class="reference external" href="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/">HTML</a> treats document contents:
grouped within a <tt class="docutils literal"><body></tt> element.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Implement them as "transitions", empty elements:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
<document>
<section names="document">
<title>
Document
<paragraph>
Paragraph 1
<transition>
<paragraph>
Paragraph 2
</pre>
<p>A transition would be a "point element", not containing anything,
only identifying a point within the document structure. This keeps
the document tree flatter, but the idea of a "point element" like
"transition" smells bad. A transition isn't a thing itself, it's
the space between two divisions. However, transitions are a
practical solution.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Solution 3 was chosen for incorporation into the document tree model.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="syntax-for-line-blocks">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id34">Syntax for Line Blocks</a></h2>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">An early idea: How about a literal-block-like prefix, perhaps
"<tt class="docutils literal">;;</tt>"? (It is, after all, a <em>semi-literal</em> literal block, no?)
Example:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Take it away, Eric the Orchestra Leader! ;;
A one, two, a one two three four
Half a bee, philosophically,
must, *ipso facto*, half not be.
But half the bee has got to be,
*vis a vis* its entity. D'you see?
But can a bee be said to be
or not to be an entire bee,
when half the bee is not a bee,
due to some ancient injury?
Singing...
</pre>
<p>Kinda lame.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Another idea: in an ordinary paragraph, if the first line ends with
a backslash (escaping the newline), interpret the entire paragraph
as a verse block? For example:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Add just one backslash\
And this paragraph becomes
An awful haiku
</pre>
<p>(Awful, and arguably invalid, since in Japanese the word "haiku"
contains three syllables not two.)</p>
<p>This idea was superceded by the rules for escaped whitespace, useful
for <a class="reference external" href="../../ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#character-level-inline-markup">character-level inline markup</a>.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">In a <a class="reference external" href="http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.text.docutils.devel/1187">2004-02-22 docutils-develop message</a>, Jarno Elonen proposed
a "plain list" syntax (and also provided a patch):</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
| John Doe
| President, SuperDuper Corp.
| jdoe@example.org
</pre>
<p>This syntax is very natural. However, these "plain lists" seem very
similar to line blocks, and I see so little intrinsic "list-ness"
that I'm loathe to add a new object. I used the term "blurbs" to
remove the "list" connotation from the originally proposed name.
Perhaps line blocks could be refined to add the two properties they
currently lack:</p>
<ol class="upperalpha simple">
<li>long lines wrap nicely</li>
<li>HTML output doesn't look like program code in non-CSS web
browsers</li>
</ol>
<p>(A) is an issue of all 3 aspects of Docutils: syntax (construct
behaviour), internal representation, and output. (B) is partly an
issue of internal representation but mostly of output.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>ReStructuredText will redefine line blocks with the "|"-quoting
syntax. The following is my current thinking.</p>
<div class="section" id="syntax">
<h3><a class="toc-backref" href="#id35">Syntax</a></h3>
<p>Perhaps line block syntax like this would do:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
| M6: James Bond
| MIB: Mr. J.
| IMF: not decided yet, but probably one of the following:
| Ethan Hunt
| Jim Phelps
| Claire Phelps
| CIA: Lea Leiter
</pre>
<p>Note that the "nested" list does not have nested syntax (the "|" are
not further indented); the leading whitespace would still be
significant somehow (more below). As for long lines in the input,
this could suffice:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
| John Doe
| Founder, President, Chief Executive Officer, Cook, Bottle
Washer, and All-Round Great Guy
| SuperDuper Corp.
| jdoe@example.org
</pre>
<p>The lack of "|" on the third line indicates that it's a continuation
of the second line, wrapped.</p>
<p>I don't see much point in allowing arbitrary nested content. Multiple
paragraphs or bullet lists inside a "blurb" doesn't make sense to me.
Simple nested line blocks should suffice.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="internal-representation">
<h3><a class="toc-backref" href="#id36">Internal Representation</a></h3>
<p>Line blocks are currently represented as text blobs as follows:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
<!ELEMENT line_block %text.model;>
<!ATTLIST line_block
%basic.atts;
%fixedspace.att;>
</pre>
<p>Instead, we could represent each line by a separate element:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
<!ELEMENT line_block (line+)>
<!ATTLIST line_block %basic.atts;>
<!ELEMENT line %text.model;>
<!ATTLIST line %basic.atts;>
</pre>
<p>We'd keep the significance of the leading whitespace of each line
either by converting it to non-breaking spaces at output, or with a
per-line margin. Non-breaking spaces are simpler (for HTML, anyway)
but kludgey, and wouldn't support indented long lines that wrap. But
should inter-word whitespace (i.e., not leading whitespace) be
preserved? Currently it is preserved in line blocks.</p>
<p>Representing a more complex line block may be tricky:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
| But can a bee be said to be
| or not to be an entire bee,
| when half the bee is not a bee,
| due to some ancient injury?
</pre>
<p>Perhaps the representation could allow for nested line blocks:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
<!ELEMENT line_block (line | line_block)+>
</pre>
<p>With this model, leading whitespace would no longer be significant.
Instead, left margins are implied by the nesting. The example above
could be represented as follows:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
<line_block>
<line>
But can a bee be said to be
<line_block>
<line>
or not to be an entire bee,
<line_block>
<line>
when half the bee is not a bee,
<line_block>
<line>
due to some ancient injury?
</pre>
<p>I wasn't sure what to do about even more complex line blocks:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
| Indented
| Not indented
| Indented a bit
| A bit more
| Only one space
</pre>
<p>How should that be parsed and nested? Should the first line have
the same nesting level (== indentation in the output) as the fourth
line, or the same as the last line? Mark Nodine suggested that such
line blocks be parsed similarly to complexly-nested block quotes,
which seems reasonable. In the example above, this would result in
the nesting of first line matching the last line's nesting. In
other words, the nesting would be relative to neighboring lines
only.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="output">
<h3><a class="toc-backref" href="#id37">Output</a></h3>
<p>In HTML, line blocks are currently output as "<pre>" blocks, which
gives us significant whitespace and line breaks, but doesn't allow
long lines to wrap and causes monospaced output without stylesheets.
Instead, we could output "<div>" elements parallelling the
representation above, where each nested <div class="line_block"> would
have an increased left margin (specified in the stylesheet).</p>
<p>Jarno suggested the following HTML output:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
<div class="line_block">
<span class="line">First, top level line</span><br class="hidden"/>
<div class="line_block"><span class="hidden">&nbsp;</span>
<span class="line">Second, once nested</span><br class="hidden"/>
<span class="line">Third, once nested</span><br class="hidden"/>
...
</div>
...
</div>
</pre>
<p>The <tt class="docutils literal"><br <span class="pre">class="hidden"</span> /></tt> and <tt class="docutils literal"><span
<span class="pre">class="hidden">&nbsp;</span></span></tt> are meant to support non-CSS and
non-graphical browsers. I understand the case for "br", but I'm not
so sure about hidden "&nbsp;". I question how much effort should be
put toward supporting non-graphical and especially non-CSS browsers,
at least for html4css1.py output.</p>
<p>Should the lines themselves be <tt class="docutils literal"><span></tt> or <tt class="docutils literal"><div></tt>? I don't like
mixing inline and block-level elements.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="implementation-plan">
<h3><a class="toc-backref" href="#id38">Implementation Plan</a></h3>
<p>We'll leave the old implementation in place (via the "line-block"
directive only) until all Writers have been updated to support the new
syntax & implementation. The "line-block" directive can then be
updated to use the new internal representation, and its documentation
will be updated to recommend the new syntax.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="list-driven-tables">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id39">List-Driven Tables</a></h2>
<p>The original idea came from Dylan Jay:</p>
<blockquote>
... to use a two level bulleted list with something to
indicate it should be rendered as a table ...</blockquote>
<p>It's an interesting idea. It could be implemented in as a directive
which transforms a uniform two-level list into a table. Using a
directive would allow the author to explicitly set the table's
orientation (by column or by row), the presence of row headers, etc.</p>
<p>Alternatives:</p>
<ol class="arabic">
<li><p class="first">(Implemented in Docutils 0.3.8).</p>
<p>Bullet-list-tables might look like this:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. list-table::
* - Treat
- Quantity
- Description
* - Albatross!
- 299
- On a stick!
* - Crunchy Frog!
- 1499
- If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy,
now would it?
* - Gannet Ripple!
- 199
- On a stick!
</pre>
<p>This list must be written in two levels. This wouldn't work:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. list-table::
* Treat
* Albatross!
* Gannet!
* Crunchy Frog!
* Quantity
* 299
* 199
* 1499
* Description
* On a stick!
* On a stick!
* If we took the bones out...
</pre>
<p>The above is a single list of 12 items. The blank lines are not
significant to the markup. We'd have to explicitly specify how
many columns or rows to use, which isn't a good idea.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Beni Cherniavsky suggested a field list alternative. It could look
like this:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. field-list-table::
:headrows: 1
- :treat: Treat
:quantity: Quantity
:descr: Description
- :treat: Albatross!
:quantity: 299
:descr: On a stick!
- :treat: Crunchy Frog!
:quantity: 1499
:descr: If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be
crunchy, now would it?
</pre>
<p>Column order is determined from the order of fields in the first
row. Field order in all other rows is ignored. As a side-effect,
this allows trivial re-arrangement of columns. By using named
fields, it becomes possible to omit fields in some rows without
losing track of things, which is important for spans.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">An alternative to two-level bullet lists would be to use enumerated
lists for the table cells:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. list-table::
* 1. Treat
2. Quantity
3. Description
* 1. Albatross!
2. 299
3. On a stick!
* 1. Crunchy Frog!
2. 1499
3. If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy,
now would it?
</pre>
<p>That provides better correspondence between cells in the same
column than does bullet-list syntax, but not as good as field list
syntax. I think that were only field-list-tables available, a lot
of users would use the equivalent degenerate case:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. field-list-table::
- :1: Treat
:2: Quantity
:3: Description
...
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Another natural variant is to allow a description list with field
lists as descriptions:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. list-table::
:headrows: 1
Treat
:quantity: Quantity
:descr: Description
Albatross!
:quantity: 299
:descr: On a stick!
Crunchy Frog!
:quantity: 1499
:descr: If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be
crunchy, now would it?
</pre>
<p>This would make the whole first column a header column ("stub").
It's limited to a single column and a single paragraph fitting on
one source line. Also it wouldn't allow for empty cells or row
spans in the first column. But these are limitations that we could
live with, like those of simple tables.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>The List-driven table feature could be done in many ways. Each user
will have their preferred usage. Perhaps a single "list-table"
directive could handle them all, depending on which options and
content are present.</p>
<p>Issues:</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">How to indicate that there's 1 header row? Perhaps two lists?</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. list-table::
+ - Treat
- Quantity
- Description
* - Albatross!
- 299
- On a stick!
</pre>
<p>This is probably too subtle though. Better would be a directive
option, like <tt class="docutils literal">:headrows: 1</tt>. An early suggestion for the header
row(s) was to use a directive option:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. field-list-table::
:header:
- :treat: Treat
:quantity: Quantity
:descr: Description
- :treat: Albatross!
:quantity: 299
:descr: On a stick!
</pre>
<p>But the table data is at two levels and looks inconsistent.</p>
<p>In general, we cannot extract the header row from field lists' field
names because field names cannot contain everything one might put in
a table cell. A separate header row also allows shorter field names
and doesn't force one to rewrite the whole table when the header
text changes. But for simpler cases, we can offer a ":header:
fields" option, which does extract header cells from field names:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. field-list-table::
:header: fields
- :Treat: Albatross!
:Quantity: 299
:Description: On a stick!
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">How to indicate the column widths? A directive option?</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. list-table::
:widths: 15 10 35
</pre>
<p>Automatic defaults from the text used?</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">How to handle row and/or column spans?</p>
<p>In a field list, column-spans can be indicated by specifying the
first and last fields, separated by space-dash-space or ellipsis:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
- :foo - baz: quuux
- :foo ... baz: quuux
</pre>
<p>Commas were proposed for column spans:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
- :foo, bar: quux
</pre>
<p>But non-adjacent columns become problematic. Should we report an
error, or duplicate the value into each span of adjacent columns (as
was suggested)? The latter suggestion is appealing but may be too
clever. Best perhaps to simply specify the two ends.</p>
<p>It was suggested that comma syntax should be allowed, too, in order
to allow the user to avoid trouble when changing the column order.
But changing the column order of a table with spans is not trivial;
we shouldn't make it easier to mess up.</p>
<p>One possible syntax for row-spans is to simply treat any row where a
field is missing as a row-span from the last row where it appeared.
Leaving a field empty would still be possible by writing a field
with empty content. But this is too implicit.</p>
<p>Another way would be to require an explicit continuation marker
(<tt class="docutils literal">...</tt>/<tt class="docutils literal"><span class="pre">-"-</span></tt>/<tt class="docutils literal">"</tt>?) in all but the first row of a spanned
field. Empty comments could work (".."). If implemented, the same
marker could also be supported in simple tables, which lack
row-spanning abilities.</p>
<p>Explicit markup like ":rowspan:" and ":colspan:" was also suggested.</p>
<p>Sometimes in a table, the first header row contains spans. It may
be necessary to provide a way to specify the column field names
independently of data rows. A directive option would do it.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">We could specify "column-wise" or "row-wise" ordering, with the same
markup structure. For example, with definition data:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. list-table::
:column-wise:
Treat
- Albatross!
- Crunchy Frog!
Quantity
- 299
- 1499
Description
- On a stick!
- If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be
crunchy, now would it?
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">A syntax for <span class="target" id="stubs-in-grid-tables">stubs in grid tables</span> is easy to imagine:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
+------------------------++------------+----------+
| Header row, column 1 || Header 2 | Header 3 |
+========================++============+==========+
| body row 1, column 1 || column 2 | column 3 |
+------------------------++------------+----------+
</pre>
<p>Or this idea from Nick Moffitt:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
+-----+---+---+
| XOR # T | F |
+=====+===+===+
| T # F | T |
+-----+---+---+
| F # T | F |
+-----+---+---+
</pre>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="section" id="auto-enumerated-lists">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id40">Auto-Enumerated Lists</a></h2>
<p>Implemented 2005-03-24: combination of variation 1 & 2.</p>
<p>The advantage of auto-numbered enumerated lists would be similar to
that of auto-numbered footnotes: lists could be written and rearranged
without having to manually renumber them. The disadvantages are also
the same: input and output wouldn't match exactly; the markup may be
ugly or confusing (depending on which alternative is chosen).</p>
<ol class="arabic">
<li><p class="first">Use the "#" symbol. Example:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
#. Item 1.
#. Item 2.
#. Item 3.
</pre>
<p>Advantages: simple, explicit. Disadvantage: enumeration sequence
cannot be specified (limited to arabic numerals); ugly.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">As a variation on #1, first initialize the enumeration sequence?
For example:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
a) Item a.
#) Item b.
#) Item c.
</pre>
<p>Advantages: simple, explicit, any enumeration sequence possible.
Disadvantages: ugly; perhaps confusing with mixed concrete/abstract
enumerators.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Alternative suggested by Fred Bremmer, from experience with MoinMoin:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
1. Item 1.
1. Item 2.
1. Item 3.
</pre>
<p>Advantages: enumeration sequence is explicit (could be multiple
"a." or "(I)" tokens). Disadvantages: perhaps confusing; otherwise
erroneous input (e.g., a duplicate item "1.") would pass silently,
either causing a problem later in the list (if no blank lines
between items) or creating two lists (with blanks).</p>
<p>Take this input for example:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
1. Item 1.
1. Unintentional duplicate of item 1.
2. Item 2.
</pre>
<p>Currently the parser will produce two list, "1" and "1,2" (no
warnings, because of the presence of blank lines). Using Fred's
notation, the current behavior is "1,1,2 -> 1 1,2" (without blank
lines between items, it would be "1,1,2 -> 1 [WARNING] 1,2"). What
should the behavior be with auto-numbering?</p>
<p>Fred has produced a <a class="reference external" href="http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=548802&group_id=38414&atid=422032">patch</a>, whose initial behavior is as follows:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
1,1,1 -> 1,2,3
1,2,2 -> 1,2,3
3,3,3 -> 3,4,5
1,2,2,3 -> 1,2,3 [WARNING] 3
1,1,2 -> 1,2 [WARNING] 2
</pre>
<p>(After the "[WARNING]", the "3" would begin a new list.)</p>
<p>I have mixed feelings about adding this functionality to the spec &
parser. It would certainly be useful to some users (myself
included; I often have to renumber lists). Perhaps it's too
clever, asking the parser to guess too much. What if you <em>do</em> want
three one-item lists in a row, each beginning with "1."? You'd
have to use empty comments to force breaks. Also, I question
whether "1,2,2 -> 1,2,3" is optimal behavior.</p>
<p>In response, Fred came up with "a stricter and more explicit rule
[which] would be to only auto-number silently if <em>all</em> the
enumerators of a list were identical". In that case:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
1,1,1 -> 1,2,3
1,2,2 -> 1,2 [WARNING] 2
3,3,3 -> 3,4,5
1,2,2,3 -> 1,2 [WARNING] 2,3
1,1,2 -> 1,2 [WARNING] 2
</pre>
<p>Should any start-value be allowed ("3,3,3"), or should
auto-numbered lists be limited to begin with ordinal-1 ("1", "A",
"a", "I", or "i")?</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Alternative proposed by Tony Ibbs:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
#1. First item.
#3. Aha - I edited this in later.
#2. Second item.
</pre>
<p>The initial proposal required unique enumerators within a list, but
this limits the convenience of a feature of already limited
applicability and convenience. Not a useful requirement; dropped.</p>
<p>Instead, simply prepend a "#" to a standard list enumerator to
indicate auto-enumeration. The numbers (or letters) of the
enumerators themselves are not significant, except:</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>as a sequence indicator (arabic, roman, alphabetic; upper/lower),</li>
<li>and perhaps as a start value (first list item).</li>
</ul>
<p>Advantages: explicit, any enumeration sequence possible.
Disadvantages: a bit ugly.</p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class="section" id="adjacent-citation-references">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id41">Adjacent citation references</a></h2>
<p>A special case for inline markup was proposed and implemented:
multiple citation references could be joined into one:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
[cite1]_[cite2]_ instead of requiring [cite1]_ [cite2]_
</pre>
<p>However, this was rejected as an unwarranted exception to the rules
for inline markup.
(The main motivation for the proposal, grouping citations in the latex writer,
was implemented by recognising the second group in the example above and
transforming it into <tt class="docutils literal">\cite{cite1,cite2}</tt>.)</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="inline-markup-recognition">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id42">Inline markup recognition</a></h2>
<p>Implemented 2011-12-05 (version 0.9):
Extended <a class="reference external" href="../../ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#inline-markup-recognition-rules">inline markup recognition rules</a>.</p>
<p>Non-ASCII whitespace, punctuation characters and "international" quotes are
allowed around inline markup (based on <a class="reference external" href="http://www.unicode.org/Public/5.1.0/ucd/UCD.html#General_Category_Values">Unicode categories</a>). The rules for
ASCII characters were not changed.</p>
<p>Rejected alternatives:</p>
<ol class="loweralpha">
<li><p class="first">Use <a class="reference external" href="http://www.unicode.org/Public/5.1.0/ucd/UCD.html#General_Category_Values">Unicode categories</a> for all chars (ASCII or not)</p>
<table class="docutils option-list" frame="void" rules="none">
<col class="option" />
<col class="description" />
<tbody valign="top">
<tr><td class="option-group">
<kbd><span class="option">+1</span></kbd></td>
<td><p class="first last">comprehensible, standards based,</p>
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="option-group">
<kbd><span class="option">-1</span></kbd></td>
<td><p class="first last">many "false positives" need escaping,</p>
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="option-group">
<kbd><span class="option">-1</span></kbd></td>
<td><p class="first last">not backwards compatible.</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</li>
<li><p class="first">full backwards compatibility</p>
<table class="docutils field-list" frame="void" rules="none">
<col class="field-name" />
<col class="field-body" />
<tbody valign="top">
<tr class="field"><th class="field-name">Pi:</th><td class="field-body"><p class="first">only before start-string</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr class="field"><th class="field-name">Pf:</th><td class="field-body"><p class="first">only behind end-string</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr class="field"><th class="field-name">Po:</th><td class="field-body"><p class="first">"conservative" sorting of other punctuation:</p>
<table class="last docutils field-list" frame="void" rules="none">
<col class="field-name" />
<col class="field-body" />
<tbody valign="top">
<tr class="field"><th class="field-name"><tt class="docutils literal"><span class="pre">.,;!?\\</span></tt>:</th><td class="field-body">Close</td>
</tr>
<tr class="field"><th class="field-name"><tt class="docutils literal">¡¿</tt>:</th><td class="field-body">Open</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="docutils option-list" frame="void" rules="none">
<col class="option" />
<col class="description" />
<tbody valign="top">
<tr><td class="option-group">
<kbd><span class="option">+1</span></kbd></td>
<td><p class="first last">backwards compatible,</p>
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="option-group">
<kbd><span class="option">+1</span></kbd></td>
<td><p class="first last">logical extension of the existing rules,</p>
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="option-group">
<kbd><span class="option">-1</span></kbd></td>
<td><p class="first last">exception list for "other" punctuation needed,</p>
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="option-group">
<kbd><span class="option">-1</span></kbd></td>
<td><p class="first last">rules even more complicated,</p>
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="option-group">
<kbd><span class="option">-1</span></kbd></td>
<td><p class="first last">not clear how to sort "other" punctuation that is currently not
recognized,</p>
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="option-group">
<kbd><span class="option">-2</span></kbd></td>
<td><p class="first last">international quoting convention like
»German ›angular‹ quotes« not recognized.</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="not-implemented">
<h1><a class="toc-backref" href="#id43">Not Implemented</a></h1>
<div class="section" id="reworking-footnotes">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id44">Reworking Footnotes</a></h2>
<p>As a further wrinkle (see <a class="reference internal" href="#reworking-explicit-markup-round-1">Reworking Explicit Markup (Round 1)</a>
above), in the wee hours of 2002-02-28 I posted several ideas for
changes to footnote syntax:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Change footnote syntax from <tt class="docutils literal">.. [1]</tt> to <tt class="docutils literal">_[1]</tt>? ...</li>
<li>Differentiate (with new DTD elements) author-date "citations"
(<tt class="docutils literal">[GVR2002]</tt>) from numbered footnotes? ...</li>
<li>Render footnote references as superscripts without "[]"? ...</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>These ideas are all related, and suggest changes in the
reStructuredText syntax as well as the docutils tree model.</p>
<p>The footnote has been used for both true footnotes (asides expanding
on points or defining terms) and for citations (references to external
works). Rather than dealing with one amalgam construct, we could
separate the current footnote concept into strict footnotes and
citations. Citations could be interpreted and treated differently
from footnotes. Footnotes would be limited to numerical labels:
manual ("1") and auto-numbered (anonymous "#", named "#label").</p>
<p>The footnote is the only explicit markup construct (starts with ".. ")
that directly translates to a visible body element. I've always been
a little bit uncomfortable with the ".. " marker for footnotes because
of this; ".. " has a connotation of "special", but footnotes aren't
especially "special". Printed texts often put footnotes at the bottom
of the page where the reference occurs (thus "foot note"). Some HTML
designs would leave footnotes to be rendered the same positions where
they're defined. Other online and printed designs will gather
footnotes into a section near the end of the document, converting them
to "endnotes" (perhaps using a directive in our case); but this
"special processing" is not an intrinsic property of the footnote
itself, but a decision made by the document author or processing
system.</p>
<p>Citations are almost invariably collected in a section at the end of a
document or section. Citations "disappear" from where they are
defined and are magically reinserted at some well-defined point.
There's more of a connection to the "special" connotation of the ".. "
syntax. The point at which the list of citations is inserted could be
defined manually by a directive (e.g., ".. citations::"), and/or have
default behavior (e.g., a section automatically inserted at the end of
the document) that might be influenced by options to the Writer.</p>
<p>Syntax proposals:</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">Footnotes:</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">Current syntax:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. [1] Footnote 1
.. [#] Auto-numbered footnote.
.. [#label] Auto-labeled footnote.
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">The syntax proposed in the original 2002-02-28 Doc-SIG post:
remove the ".. ", prefix a "_":</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
_[1] Footnote 1
_[#] Auto-numbered footnote.
_[#label] Auto-labeled footnote.
</pre>
<p>The leading underscore syntax (earlier dropped because
<tt class="docutils literal">.. _[1]:</tt> was too verbose) is a useful reminder that footnotes
are hyperlink targets.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Minimal syntax: remove the ".. [" and "]", prefix a "_", and
suffix a ".":</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
_1. Footnote 1.
_#. Auto-numbered footnote.
_#label. Auto-labeled footnote.
``_1.``, ``_#.``, and ``_#label.`` are markers,
like list markers.
</pre>
<p>Footnotes could be rendered something like this in HTML</p>
<blockquote>
<div class="line-block">
<div class="line">1. This is a footnote. The brackets could be dropped</div>
<div class="line-block">
<div class="line">from the label, and a vertical bar could set them</div>
<div class="line">off from the rest of the document in the HTML.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Two-way hyperlinks on the footnote marker ("1." above) would also
help to differentiate footnotes from enumerated lists.</p>
<p>If converted to endnotes (by a directive/transform), a horizontal
half-line might be used instead. Page-oriented output formats
would typically use the horizontal line for true footnotes.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Footnote references:</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">Current syntax:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
[1]_, [#]_, [#label]_
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Minimal syntax to match the minimal footnote syntax above:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
1_, #_, #label_
</pre>
<p>As a consequence, pure-numeric hyperlink references would not be
possible; they'd be interpreted as footnote references.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Citation references: no change is proposed from the current footnote
reference syntax:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
[GVR2001]_
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Citations:</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">Current syntax (footnote syntax):</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. [GVR2001] Python Documentation; van Rossum, Drake, et al.;
http://www.python.org/doc/
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Possible new syntax:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
_[GVR2001] Python Documentation; van Rossum, Drake, et al.;
http://www.python.org/doc/
_[DJG2002]
Docutils: Python Documentation Utilities project; Goodger
et al.; http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
</pre>
<p>Without the ".. " marker, subsequent lines would either have to
align as in one of the above, or we'd have to allow loose
alignment (I'd rather not):</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
_[GVR2001] Python Documentation; van Rossum, Drake, et al.;
http://www.python.org/doc/
</pre>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>I proposed adopting the "minimal" syntax for footnotes and footnote
references, and adding citations and citation references to
reStructuredText's repertoire. The current footnote syntax for
citations is better than the alternatives given.</p>
<p>From a reply by Tony Ibbs on 2002-03-01:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>However, I think easier with examples, so let's create one:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Fans of Terry Pratchett are perhaps more likely to use
footnotes [1]_ in their own writings than other people
[2]_. Of course, in *general*, one only sees footnotes
in academic or technical writing - it's use in fiction
and letter writing is not normally considered good
style [4]_, particularly in emails (not a medium that
lends itself to footnotes).
.. [1] That is, little bits of referenced text at the
bottom of the page.
.. [2] Because Terry himself does, of course [3]_.
.. [3] Although he has the distinction of being
*funny* when he does it, and his fans don't always
achieve that aim.
.. [4] Presumably because it detracts from linear
reading of the text - this is, of course, the point.
</pre>
<p>and look at it with the second syntax proposal:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Fans of Terry Pratchett are perhaps more likely to use
footnotes [1]_ in their own writings than other people
[2]_. Of course, in *general*, one only sees footnotes
in academic or technical writing - it's use in fiction
and letter writing is not normally considered good
style [4]_, particularly in emails (not a medium that
lends itself to footnotes).
_[1] That is, little bits of referenced text at the
bottom of the page.
_[2] Because Terry himself does, of course [3]_.
_[3] Although he has the distinction of being
*funny* when he does it, and his fans don't always
achieve that aim.
_[4] Presumably because it detracts from linear
reading of the text - this is, of course, the point.
</pre>
<p>(I note here that if I have gotten the indentation of the
footnotes themselves correct, this is clearly not as nice. And if
the indentation should be to the left margin instead, I like that
even less).</p>
<p>and the third (new) proposal:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Fans of Terry Pratchett are perhaps more likely to use
footnotes 1_ in their own writings than other people
2_. Of course, in *general*, one only sees footnotes
in academic or technical writing - it's use in fiction
and letter writing is not normally considered good
style 4_, particularly in emails (not a medium that
lends itself to footnotes).
_1. That is, little bits of referenced text at the
bottom of the page.
_2. Because Terry himself does, of course 3_.
_3. Although he has the distinction of being
*funny* when he does it, and his fans don't always
achieve that aim.
_4. Presumably because it detracts from linear
reading of the text - this is, of course, the point.
</pre>
<p>I think I don't, in practice, mind the targets too much (the use
of a dot after the number helps a lot here), but I do have a
problem with the body text, in that I don't naturally separate out
the footnotes as different than the rest of the text - instead I
keep wondering why there are numbers interspered in the text. The
use of brackets around the numbers ([ and ]) made me somehow parse
the footnote references as "odd" - i.e., not part of the body text
- and thus both easier to skip, and also (paradoxically) easier to
pick out so that I could follow them.</p>
<p>Thus, for the moment (and as always susceptable to argument), I'd
say -1 on the new form of footnote reference (i.e., I much prefer
the existing <tt class="docutils literal">[1]_</tt> over the proposed <tt class="docutils literal">1_</tt>), and ambivalent
over the proposed target change.</p>
<p>That leaves David's problem of wanting to distinguish footnotes
and citations - and the only thing I can propose there is that
footnotes are numeric or # and citations are not (which, as a
human being, I can probably cope with!).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>From a reply by Paul Moore on 2002-03-01:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think the current footnote syntax <tt class="docutils literal">[1]_</tt> is <em>exactly</em> the
right balance of distinctness vs unobtrusiveness. I very
definitely don't think this should change.</p>
<p>On the target change, it doesn't matter much to me.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>From a further reply by Tony Ibbs on 2002-03-01, referring to the
"[1]" form and actual usage in email:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Clearly this is a form people are used to, and thus we should
consider it strongly (in the same way that the usage of <tt class="docutils literal"><span class="pre">*..*</span></tt>
to mean emphasis was taken partly from email practise).</p>
<p>Equally clearly, there is something "magical" for people in the
use of a similar form (i.e., <tt class="docutils literal">[1]</tt>) for both footnote reference
and footnote target - it seems natural to keep them similar.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>I think that this established plaintext usage leads me to strongly
believe we should retain square brackets at both ends of a
footnote. The markup of the reference end (a single trailing
underscore) seems about as minimal as we can get away with. The
markup of the target end depends on how one envisages the thing -
if ".." means "I am a target" (as I tend to see it), then that's
good, but one can also argue that the "_[1]" syntax has a neat
symmetry with the footnote reference itself, if one wishes (in
which case ".." presumably means "hidden/special" as David seems
to think, which is why one needs a ".." <em>and</em> a leading underline
for hyperlink targets.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Given the persuading arguments voiced, we'll leave footnote & footnote
reference syntax alone. Except that these discussions gave rise to
the "auto-symbol footnote" concept, which has been added. Citations
and citation references have also been added.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="syntax-for-questions-answers">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id45">Syntax for Questions & Answers</a></h2>
<p>Implement as a generic two-column marked list? As a standalone
(non-directive) construct? (Is the markup ambiguous?) Add support to
parts.contents?</p>
<p>New elements would be required. Perhaps:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
<!ELEMENT question_list (question_list_item+)>
<!ATTLIST question_list
numbering (none | local | global)
#IMPLIED
start NUMBER #IMPLIED>
<!ELEMENT question_list_item (question, answer*)>
<!ELEMENT question %text.model;>
<!ELEMENT answer (%body.elements;)+>
</pre>
<p>Originally I thought of implementing a Q&A list with special syntax:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Q: What am I?
A: You are a question-and-answer
list.
Q: What are you?
A: I am the omniscient "we".
</pre>
<p>Where each "Q" and "A" could also be numbered (e.g., "Q1"). However,
a simple enumerated or bulleted list will do just fine for syntax. A
directive could treat the list specially; e.g. the first paragraph
could be treated as a question, the remainder as the answer (multiple
answers could be represented by nested lists). Without special
syntax, this directive becomes low priority.</p>
<p>As described in the <a class="reference external" href="http://docutils.sf.net/FAQ.html#how-can-i-mark-up-a-faq-or-other-list-of-questions-answers">FAQ</a>, no special syntax or directive is needed
for this application.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="tabled">
<h1><a class="toc-backref" href="#id46">Tabled</a></h1>
<div class="section" id="reworking-explicit-markup-round-2">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id47">Reworking Explicit Markup (Round 2)</a></h2>
<p>See <a class="reference internal" href="#reworking-explicit-markup-round-1">Reworking Explicit Markup (Round 1)</a> for an earlier discussion.</p>
<p>In April 2004, a new thread becan on docutils-develop: <a class="reference external" href="http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.text.docutils.devel/1386">Inconsistency
in RST markup</a>. Several arguments were made; the first argument
begat later arguments. Below, the arguments are paraphrased "in
quotes", with responses.</p>
<ol class="arabic">
<li><p class="first">References and targets take this form:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
targetname_
.. _targetname: stuff
</pre>
<p>But footnotes, "which generate links just like targets do", are
written as:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
[1]_
.. [1] stuff
</pre>
<p>"Footnotes should be written as":</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
[1]_
.. _[1]: stuff
</pre>
<p>But they're not the same type of animal. That's not a "footnote
target", it's a <em>footnote</em>. Being a target is not a footnote's
primary purpose (an arguable point). It just happens to grow a
target automatically, for convenience. Just as a section title:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Title
=====
</pre>
<p>isn't a "title target", it's a <em>title</em>, which happens to grow a
target automatically. The consistency is there, it's just deeper
than at first glance.</p>
<p>Also, ".. [1]" was chosen for footnote syntax because it closely
resembles one form of actual footnote rendering. ".. _[1]:" is too
verbose; excessive punctuation is required to get the job done.</p>
<p>For more of the reasoning behind the syntax, see <a class="reference external" href="problems.html#hyperlinks">Problems With
StructuredText (Hyperlinks)</a> and
<a class="reference internal" href="#reworking-footnotes">Reworking Footnotes</a>.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">"I expect directives to also look like <tt class="docutils literal">.. this:</tt> [one colon]
because that also closely parallels the link and footnote target
markup."</p>
<p>There are good reasons for the two-colon syntax:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Two colons are used after the directive type for these reasons:</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">Two colons are distinctive, and unlikely to be used in common
text.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Two colons avoids clashes with common comment text like:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. Danger: modify at your own risk!
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">If an implementation of reStructuredText does not recognize a
directive (i.e., the directive-handler is not installed), a
level-3 (error) system message is generated, and the entire
directive block (including the directive itself) will be
included as a literal block. Thus "::" is a natural choice.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p class="attribution">—<a class="reference external" href="../../ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#directives">restructuredtext.html#directives</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The last reason is not particularly compelling; it's more of a
convenient coincidence or mnemonic.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">"Comments always seemed too easy. I almost never write comments.
I'd have no problem writing '.. comment:' in front of my comments.
In fact, it would probably be more readable, as comments <em>should</em>
be set off strongly, because they are very different from normal
text."</p>
<p>Many people do use comments though, and some applications of
reStructuredText require it. For example, all reStructuredText
PEPs (and this document!) have an Emacs stanza at the bottom, in a
comment. Having to write ".. comment::" would be very obtrusive.</p>
<p>Comments <em>should</em> be dirt-easy to do. It should be easy to
"comment out" a block of text. Comments in programming languages
and other markup languages are invariably easy.</p>
<p>Any author is welcome to preface their comments with "Comment:" or
"Do Not Print" or "Note to Editor" or anything they like. A
"comment" directive could easily be implemented. It might be
confused with admonition directives, like "note" and "caution"
though. In unrelated (and unpublished and unfinished) work, adding
a "comment" directive as a true document element was considered:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
If structure is necessary, we could use a "comment" directive
(to avoid nonsensical DTD changes, the "comment" directive
could produce an untitled topic element).
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">"One of the goals of reStructuredText is to be <em>readable</em> by people
who don't know it. This construction violates that: it is not at
all obvious to the uninitiated that text marked by '..' is a
comment. On the other hand, '.. comment:' would be totally
transparent."</p>
<p>Totally transparent, perhaps, but also very obtrusive. Another of
<a class="reference external" href="../../ref/rst/introduction.html#goals">reStructuredText's goals</a> is to be unobtrusive, and
".. comment::" would violate that. The goals of reStructuredText
are many, and they conflict. Determining the right set of goals
and finding solutions that best fit is done on a case-by-case
basis.</p>
<p>Even readability is has two aspects. Being readable without any
prior knowledge is one. Being as easily read in raw form as in
processed form is the other. ".." may not contribute to the former
aspect, but ".. comment::" would certainly detract from the latter.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">"Recently I sent someone an rst document, and they got confused; I
had to explain to them that '..' marks comments, <em>unless</em> it's a
directive, etc..."</p>
<p>The explanation of directives <em>is</em> roundabout, defining comments in
terms of not being other things. That's definitely a wart.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">"Under the current system, a mistyped directive (with ':' instead
of '::') will be silently ignored. This is an error that could
easily go unnoticed."</p>
<p>A parser option/setting like "--comments-on-stderr" would help.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">"I'd prefer to see double-dot-space / command / double-colon as the
standard Docutils markup-marker. It's unusual enough to avoid
being accidently used. Everything that starts with a double-dot
should end with a double-colon."</p>
<p>That would increase the punctuation verbosity of some constructs
considerably.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Edward Loper proposed the following plan for backwards
compatibility:</p>
<blockquote>
<ol class="arabic simple">
<li>".. foo" will generate a deprecation warning to stderr, and
nothing in the output (no system messages).</li>
<li>".. foo: bar" will be treated as a directive foo. If there
is no foo directive, then do the normal error output.</li>
<li>".. foo:: bar" will generate a deprecation warning to
stderr, and be treated as a directive. Or leave it valid?</li>
</ol>
<p>So some existing documents might start printing deprecation
warnings, but the only existing documents that would <em>break</em>
would be ones that say something like:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. warning: this should be a comment
</pre>
<p>instead of:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. warning:: this should be a comment
</pre>
<p>Here, we're trading fairly common a silent error (directive
falsely treated as a comment) for a fairly uncommon explicitly
flagged error (comment falsely treated as directive). To make
things even easier, we could add a sentence to the
unknown-directive error. Something like "If you intended to
create a comment, please use '.. comment:' instead".</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
<p>On one hand, I understand and sympathize with the points raised. On
the other hand, I think the current syntax strikes the right balance
(but I acknowledge a possible lack of objectivity). On the gripping
hand, the comment and directive syntax has become well established, so
even if it's a wart, it may be a wart we have to live with.</p>
<p>Making any of these changes would cause a lot of breakage or at least
deprecation warnings. I'm not sure the benefit is worth the cost.</p>
<p>For now, we'll treat this as an unresolved legacy issue.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="to-do">
<h1><a class="toc-backref" href="#id48">To Do</a></h1>
<div class="section" id="nested-inline-markup">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id49">Nested Inline Markup</a></h2>
<p>These are collected notes on a long-discussed issue. The original
mailing list messages should be referred to for details.</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">In a 2001-10-31 discussion I wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Try, for example, <a class="reference external" href="http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/2001-March/001487.html">Ed Loper's 2001-03-21 post</a>, which details
some rules for nested inline markup. I think the complexity is
prohibitive for the marginal benefit. (And if you can understand
that tree without going mad, you're a better man than I. ;-)</p>
<p>Inline markup is already fragile. Allowing nested inline markup
would only be asking for trouble IMHO. If it proves absolutely
necessary, it can be added later. The rules for what can appear
inside what must be well thought out first though.</p>
<p class="attribution">—<a class="reference external" href="http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/2001-October/002354.html">http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/2001-October/002354.html</a></p>
</blockquote>
</li>
<li><p class="first">In a 2001-11-09 Doc-SIG post, I wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The problem is that in the
what-you-see-is-more-or-less-what-you-get markup language that
is reStructuredText, the symbols used for inline markup ("*",
"**", "`", "``", etc.) may preclude nesting.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I've rethought this position. Nested markup is not precluded, just
tricky. People and software parse "double and 'single' quotes" all
the time. Continuing,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I've thought over how we might implement nested inline
markup. The first algorithm ("first identify the outer inline
markup as we do now, then recursively scan for nested inline
markup") won't work; counterexamples were given in my <a class="reference external" href="http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/2001-November/002363.html">last post</a>.</p>
<p>The second algorithm makes my head hurt:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
while 1:
scan for start-string
if found:
push on stack
scan for start or end string
if new start string found:
recurse
elif matching end string found:
pop stack
elif non-matching end string found:
if its a markup error:
generate warning
elif the initial start-string was misinterpreted:
# e.g. in this case: ***strong** in emphasis*
restart with the other interpretation
# but it might be several layers back ...
...
</pre>
<p>This is similar to how the parser does section title
recognition, but sections are much more regular and
deterministic.</p>
<p>Bottom line is, I don't think the benefits are worth the effort,
even if it is possible. I'm not going to try to write the code,
at least not now. If somebody codes up a consistent, working,
general solution, I'll be happy to consider it.</p>
<p class="attribution">—<a class="reference external" href="http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/2001-November/002388.html">http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/2001-November/002388.html</a></p>
</blockquote>
</li>
<li><p class="first">In a <a class="reference external" href="http://article.gmane.org/gmane.text.docutils.user/317">2003-05-06 Docutils-Users post</a> Paul Tremblay proposed a new
syntax to allow for easier nesting. It eventually evolved into
this:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
:role:[inline text]
</pre>
<p>The duplication with the existing interpreted text syntax is
problematic though.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Could the parser be extended to parse nested interpreted text?</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
:emphasis:`Some emphasized text with :strong:`some more
emphasized text` in it and **perhaps** :reference:`a link``
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">In a <a class="reference external" href="http://article.gmane.org/gmane.text.docutils.devel/795">2003-06-18 Docutils-Develop post</a>, Mark Nodine reported on
his implementation of a form of nested inline markup in his
Perl-based parser (unpublished). He brought up some interesting
ideas. The implementation was flawed, however, by the change in
semantics required for backslash escapes.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Docutils-develop threads between David Abrahams, David Goodger, and
Mark Nodine (beginning <a class="reference external" href="http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.text.docutils.devel/1102">2004-01-16</a> and <a class="reference external" href="http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.text.docutils.devel/1125">2004-01-19</a>) hashed out
many of the details of a potentially successful implementation, as
described below. David Abrahams checked in code to the "nesting"
branch of CVS, awaiting thorough review.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>It may be possible to accomplish nested inline markup in general with
a more powerful inline markup parser. There may be some issues, but
I'm not averse to the idea of nested inline markup in general. I just
don't have the time or inclination to write a new parser now. Of
course, a good patch would be welcome!</p>
<p>I envisage something like this. Explicit-role interpreted text must
be nestable. Prefix-based is probably preferred, since suffix-based
will look like inline literals:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
``text`:role1:`:role2:
</pre>
<p>But it can be disambiguated, so it ought to be left up to the author:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
`\ `text`:role1:`:role2:
</pre>
<p>In addition, other forms of inline markup may be nested if
unambiguous:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
*emphasized ``literal`` and |substitution ref| and link_*
</pre>
<p>IOW, the parser ought to be as permissive as possible.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="index-entries-indexes">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id50">Index Entries & Indexes</a></h2>
<p>Were I writing a book with an index, I guess I'd need two
different kinds of index targets: inline/implicit and
out-of-line/explicit. For example:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
In this `paragraph`:index:, several words are being
`marked`:index: inline as implicit `index`:index:
entries.
.. index:: markup
.. index:: syntax
The explicit index directives above would refer to
this paragraph. It might also make sense to allow multiple
entries in an ``index`` directive:
.. index::
markup
syntax
</pre>
<p>The words "paragraph", "marked", and "index" would become index
entries pointing at the words in the first paragraph. The index
entry words appear verbatim in the text. (Don't worry about the
ugly ":index:" part; if indexing is the only/main application of
interpreted text in your documents, it can be implicit and
omitted.) The two directives provide manual indexing, where the
index entry words ("markup" and "syntax") do not appear in the
main text. We could combine the two directives into one:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. index:: markup; syntax
</pre>
<p>Semicolons instead of commas because commas could <em>be</em> part of the
index target, like:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. index:: van Rossum, Guido
</pre>
<p>Another reason for index directives is because other inline markup
wouldn't be possible within inline index targets.</p>
<p>Sometimes index entries have multiple levels. Given:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. index:: statement syntax: expression statements
</pre>
<p>In a hypothetical index, combined with other entries, it might
look like this:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
statement syntax
expression statements ..... 56
assignment ................ 57
simple statements ......... 58
compound statements ....... 60
</pre>
<p>Inline multi-level index targets could be done too. Perhaps
something like:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
When dealing with `expression statements <statement syntax:>`,
we must remember ...
</pre>
<p>The opposite sense could also be possible:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
When dealing with `index entries <:multi-level>`, there are
many permutations to consider.
</pre>
<p>Also "see / see also" index entries.</p>
<p>Given:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Here's a paragraph.
.. index:: paragraph
</pre>
<p>(The "index" directive above actually targets the <em>preceding</em>
object.) The directive should produce something like this XML:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
<paragraph>
<index_entry text="paragraph"/>
Here's a paragraph.
</paragraph>
</pre>
<p>This kind of content model would also allow true inline
index-entries:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Here's a `paragraph`:index:.
</pre>
<p>If the "index" role were the default for the application, it could be
dropped:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Here's a `paragraph`.
</pre>
<p>Both of these would result in this XML:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
<paragraph>
Here's a <index_entry>paragraph</index_entry>.
</paragraph>
</pre>
<div class="section" id="from-2002-06-24-docutils-develop-posts">
<h3><a class="toc-backref" href="#id51">from 2002-06-24 docutils-develop posts</a></h3>
<blockquote>
If all of your index entries will appear verbatim in the text,
this should be sufficient. If not (e.g., if you want "Van Rossum,
Guido" in the index but "Guido van Rossum" in the text), we'll
have to figure out a supplemental mechanism, perhaps using
substitutions.</blockquote>
<p>I've thought a bit more on this, and I came up with two possibilities:</p>
<ol class="arabic">
<li><p class="first">Using interpreted text, embed the index entry text within the
interpreted text:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
... by `Guido van Rossum [Van Rossum, Guido]` ...
</pre>
<p>The problem with this is obvious: the text becomes cluttered and
hard to read. The processed output would drop the text in
brackets, which goes against the spirit of interpreted text.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Use substitutions:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
... by |Guido van Rossum| ...
.. |Guido van Rossum| index:: Van Rossum, Guido
</pre>
<p>A problem with this is that each substitution definition must have
a unique name. A subsequent <tt class="docutils literal">.. |Guido van Rossum| index:: BDFL</tt>
would be illegal. Some kind of anonymous substitution definition
mechanism would be required, but I think that's going too far.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Both of these alternatives are flawed. Any other ideas?</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="or-not-to-do">
<h1><a class="toc-backref" href="#id52">... Or Not To Do?</a></h1>
<p>This is the realm of the possible but questionably probable. These
ideas are kept here as a record of what has been proposed, for
posterity and in case any of them prove to be useful.</p>
<div class="section" id="compound-enumerated-lists">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id53">Compound Enumerated Lists</a></h2>
<p>Allow for compound enumerators, such as "1.1." or "1.a." or "1(a)", to
allow for nested enumerated lists without indentation?</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="indented-lists">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id54">Indented Lists</a></h2>
<p>Allow for variant styles by interpreting indented lists as if they
weren't indented? For example, currently the list below will be
parsed as a list within a block quote:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
paragraph
* list item 1
* list item 2
</pre>
<p>But a lot of people seem to write that way, and HTML browsers make it
look as if that's the way it should be. The parser could check the
contents of block quotes, and if they contain only a single list,
remove the block quote wrapper. There would be two problems:</p>
<ol class="arabic simple">
<li>What if we actually <em>do</em> want a list inside a block quote?</li>
<li>What if such a list comes immediately after an indented construct,
such as a literal block?</li>
</ol>
<p>Both could be solved using empty comments (problem 2 already exists
for a block quote after a literal block). But that's a hack.</p>
<p>Perhaps a runtime setting, allowing or disabling this convenience,
would be appropriate. But that raises issues too:</p>
<blockquote>
User A, who writes lists indented (and their config file is set up
to allow it), sends a file to user B, who doesn't (and their
config file disables indented lists). The result of processing by
the two users will be different.</blockquote>
<p>It may seem minor, but it adds ambiguity to the parser, which is bad.</p>
<p>See the <a class="reference external" href="http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/2001-April/001776.html">Doc-SIG discussion starting 2001-04-18</a> with Ed Loper's
"Structuring: a summary; and an attempt at EBNF", item 4 (and
follow-ups, <a class="reference external" href="http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/2001-April/001789.html">here</a> and <a class="reference external" href="http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/2001-April/001793.html">here</a>). Also <a class="reference external" href="http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=3838913">docutils-users, 2003-02-17</a>
and <a class="reference external" href="http://sf.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=2957175&forum_id=11444">beginning 2003-08-04</a>.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="sloppy-indentation-of-list-items">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id55">Sloppy Indentation of List Items</a></h2>
<p>Perhaps the indentation shouldn't be so strict. Currently, this is
required:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
1. First line,
second line.
</pre>
<p>Anything wrong with this?</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
1. First line,
second line.
</pre>
<p>Problem?</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
1. First para.
Block quote. (no good: requires some indent relative to first
para)
Second Para.
2. Have to carefully define where the literal block ends::
Literal block
Literal block?
</pre>
<p>Hmm... Non-strict indentation isn't such a good idea.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="lazy-indentation-of-list-items">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id56">Lazy Indentation of List Items</a></h2>
<p>Another approach: Going back to the first draft of reStructuredText
(2000-11-27 post to Doc-SIG):</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
- This is the fourth item of the main list (no blank line above).
The second line of this item is not indented relative to the
bullet, which precludes it from having a second paragraph.
</pre>
<p>Change that to <em>require</em> a blank line above and below, to reduce
ambiguity. This "loosening" may be added later, once the parser's
been nailed down. However, a serious drawback of this approach is to
limit the content of each list item to a single paragraph.</p>
<div class="section" id="david-s-idea-for-lazy-indentation">
<h3><a class="toc-backref" href="#id57">David's Idea for Lazy Indentation</a></h3>
<p>Consider a paragraph in a word processor. It is a single logical line
of text which ends with a newline, soft-wrapped arbitrarily at the
right edge of the page or screen. We can think of a plaintext
paragraph in the same way, as a single logical line of text, ending
with two newlines (a blank line) instead of one, and which may contain
arbitrary line breaks (newlines) where it was accidentally
hard-wrapped by an application. We can compensate for the accidental
hard-wrapping by "unwrapping" every unindented second and subsequent
line. The indentation of the first line of a paragraph or list item
would determine the indentation for the entire element. Blank lines
would be required between list items when using lazy indentation.</p>
<p>The following example shows the lazy indentation of multiple body
elements:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
- This is the first paragraph
of the first list item.
Here is the second paragraph
of the first list item.
- This is the first paragraph
of the second list item.
Here is the second paragraph
of the second list item.
</pre>
<p>A more complex example shows the limitations of lazy indentation:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
- This is the first paragraph
of the first list item.
Next is a definition list item:
Term
Definition. The indentation of the term is
required, as is the indentation of the definition's
first line.
When the definition extends to more than
one line, lazy indentation may occur. (This is the second
paragraph of the definition.)
- This is the first paragraph
of the second list item.
- Here is the first paragraph of
the first item of a nested list.
So this paragraph would be outside of the nested list,
but inside the second list item of the outer list.
But this paragraph is not part of the list at all.
</pre>
<p>And the ambiguity remains:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
- Look at the hyphen at the beginning of the next line
- is it a second list item marker, or a dash in the text?
Similarly, we may want to refer to numbers inside enumerated
lists:
1. How many socks in a pair? There are
2. How many pants in a pair? Exactly
1. Go figure.
</pre>
<p>Literal blocks and block quotes would still require consistent
indentation for all their lines. For block quotes, we might be able
to get away with only requiring that the first line of each contained
element be indented. For example:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
Here's a paragraph.
This is a paragraph inside a block quote.
Second and subsequent lines need not be indented at all.
- A bullet list inside
the block quote.
Second paragraph of the
bullet list inside the block quote.
</pre>
<p>Although feasible, this form of lazy indentation has problems. The
document structure and hierarchy is not obvious from the indentation,
making the source plaintext difficult to read. This will also make
keeping track of the indentation while writing difficult and
error-prone. However, these problems may be acceptable for Wikis and
email mode, where we may be able to rely on less complex structure
(few nested lists, for example).</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="multiple-roles-in-interpreted-text">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id58">Multiple Roles in Interpreted Text</a></h2>
<p>In reStructuredText, inline markup cannot be nested (yet; <a class="reference internal" href="#nested-inline-markup">see
above</a>). This also applies to interpreted text. In order to
simultaneously combine multiple roles for a single piece of text, a
syntax extension would be necessary. Ideas:</p>
<ol class="arabic">
<li><p class="first">Initial idea:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
`interpreted text`:role1,role2:
</pre>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Suggested by Jason Diamond:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
`interpreted text`:role1:role2:
</pre>
</li>
</ol>
<p>If a document is so complex as to require nested inline markup,
perhaps another markup system should be considered. By design,
reStructuredText does not have the flexibility of XML.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="parameterized-interpreted-text">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id59">Parameterized Interpreted Text</a></h2>
<p>In some cases it may be expedient to pass parameters to interpreted
text, analogous to function calls. Ideas:</p>
<ol class="arabic">
<li><p class="first">Parameterize the interpreted text role itself (suggested by Jason
Diamond):</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
`interpreted text`:role1(foo=bar):
</pre>
<p>Positional parameters could also be supported:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
`CSS`:acronym(Cascading Style Sheets): is used for HTML, and
`CSS`:acronym(Content Scrambling System): is used for DVDs.
</pre>
<p>Technical problem: current interpreted text syntax does not
recognize roles containing whitespace. Design problem: this smells
like programming language syntax, but reStructuredText is not a
programming language.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Put the parameters inside the interpreted text:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
`CSS (Cascading Style Sheets)`:acronym: is used for HTML, and
`CSS (Content Scrambling System)`:acronym: is used for DVDs.
</pre>
<p>Although this could be defined on an individual basis (per role),
we ought to have a standard. Hyperlinks with embedded URIs already
use angle brackets; perhaps they could be used here too:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
`CSS <Cascading Style Sheets>`:acronym: is used for HTML, and
`CSS <Content Scrambling System>`:acronym: is used for DVDs.
</pre>
<p>Do angle brackets connote URLs too much for this to be acceptable?
How about the "tag" connotation -- does it save them or doom them?</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first"><a class="reference internal" href="#nested-inline-markup">Nested inline markup</a> could prove useful here:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
`CSS :def:`Cascading Style Sheets``:acronym: is used for HTML,
and `CSS :def:`Content Scrambling System``:acronym: is used for
DVDs.
</pre>
<p>Inline markup roles could even define the default roles of nested
inline markup, allowing this cleaner syntax:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
`CSS `Cascading Style Sheets``:acronym: is used for HTML, and
`CSS `Content Scrambling System``:acronym: is used for DVDs.
</pre>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Does this push inline markup too far? Readability becomes a serious
issue. Substitutions may provide a better alternative (at the expense
of verbosity and duplication) by pulling the details out of the text
flow:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
|CSS| is used for HTML, and |CSS-DVD| is used for DVDs.
.. |CSS| acronym:: Cascading Style Sheets
.. |CSS-DVD| acronym:: Content Scrambling System
:text: CSS
</pre>
<hr class="docutils" />
<p>This whole idea may be going beyond the scope of reStructuredText.
Documents requiring this functionality may be better off using XML or
another markup system.</p>
<p>This argument comes up regularly when pushing the envelope of
reStructuredText syntax. I think it's a useful argument in that it
provides a check on creeping featurism. In many cases, the resulting
verbosity produces such unreadable plaintext that there's a natural
desire <em>not</em> to use it unless absolutely necessary. It's a matter of
finding the right balance.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="syntax-for-interpreted-text-role-bindings">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id60">Syntax for Interpreted Text Role Bindings</a></h2>
<p>The following syntax (idea from Jeffrey C. Jacobs) could be used to
associate directives with roles:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. :rewrite: class:: rewrite
`She wore ribbons in her hair and it lay with streaks of
grey`:rewrite:
</pre>
<p>The syntax is similar to that of substitution declarations, and the
directive/role association may resolve implementation issues. The
semantics, ramifications, and implementation details would need to be
worked out.</p>
<p>The example above would implement the "rewrite" role as adding a
<tt class="docutils literal"><span class="pre">class="rewrite"</span></tt> attribute to the interpreted text ("inline"
element). The stylesheet would then pick up on the "class" attribute
to do the actual formatting.</p>
<p>The advantage of the new syntax would be flexibility. Uses other than
"class" may present themselves. The disadvantage is complexity:
having to implement new syntax for a relatively specialized operation,
and having new semantics in existing directives ("class::" would do
something different).</p>
<p>The <a class="reference external" href="../../ref/rst/directives.html#role">"role" directive</a> has been implemented.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="character-processing">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id61">Character Processing</a></h2>
<p>Several people have suggested adding some form of character processing
to reStructuredText:</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Some sort of automated replacement of ASCII sequences:<ul>
<li><tt class="docutils literal"><span class="pre">--</span></tt> to em-dash (or <tt class="docutils literal"><span class="pre">--</span></tt> to en-dash, and <tt class="docutils literal"><span class="pre">---</span></tt> to em-dash).</li>
<li>Convert quotes to curly quote entities. (Essentially impossible
for HTML? Unnecessary for TeX.)</li>
<li>Various forms of <tt class="docutils literal"><span class="pre">:-)</span></tt> to smiley icons.</li>
<li><tt class="docutils literal">"\ "</tt> to &nbsp;. Problem with line-wrapping though: it could
end up escaping the newline.</li>
<li>Escaped newlines to <BR>.</li>
<li>Escaped period or quote or dash as a disappearing catalyst to
allow character-level inline markup?</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>XML-style character entities, such as "&copy;" for the copyright
symbol.</li>
</ul>
<p>Docutils has no need of a character entity subsystem. Supporting
Unicode and text encodings, character entities should be directly
represented in the text: a copyright symbol should be represented by
the copyright symbol character. If this is not possible in an
authoring environment, a pre-processing stage can be added, or a table
of substitution definitions can be devised.</p>
<p>A "unicode" directive has been implemented to allow direct
specification of esoteric characters. In combination with the
substitution construct, "include" files defining common sets of
character entities can be defined and used. <a class="reference external" href="http://docutils.sf.net/tmp/charents/">A set of character
entity set definition files have been defined</a> (<a class="reference external" href="http://docutils.sf.net/tmp/charents.tgz">tarball</a>).
There's also <a class="reference external" href="http://docutils.sf.net/tmp/charents/README.html">a description and instructions for use</a>.</p>
<p>To allow for <a class="reference external" href="../../ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#character-level-inline-markup">character-level inline markup</a>, a limited form of
character processing has been added to the spec and parser: escaped
whitespace characters are removed from the processed document. Any
further character processing will be of this functional type, rather
than of the character-encoding type.</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">Directive idea:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
.. text-replace:: "pattern" "replacement"
</pre>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Support Unicode "U+XXXX" codes.</li>
<li>Support regexps, perhaps with alternative "regexp-replace"
directive.</li>
<li>Flags for regexps; ":flags:" option, or individuals.</li>
<li>Specifically, should the default be case-sensistive or
-insensitive?</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="section" id="page-or-line-breaks">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id62">Page Or Line Breaks</a></h2>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">Should ^L (or something else in reST) be defined to mean
force/suggest page breaks in whatever output we have?</p>
<p>A "break" or "page-break" directive would be easy to add. A new
doctree element would be required though (perhaps "break"). The
final behavior would be up to the Writer. The directive argument
could be one of page/column/recto/verso for added flexibility.</p>
<p>Currently ^L (Python's <tt class="docutils literal">\f</tt>) characters are treated as whitespace.
They're converted to single spaces, actually, as are vertical tabs
(^K, Python's <tt class="docutils literal">\v</tt>). It would be possible to recognize form feeds
as markup, but it requires some thought and discussion first. Are
there any downsides? Many editing environments do not allow the
insertion of control characters. Will it cause any harm? It would
be useful as a shorthand for the directive.</p>
<p>It's common practice to use ^L before Emacs "Local Variables"
lists:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
^L
..
Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
sentence-end-double-space: t
fill-column: 70
End:
</pre>
<p>These are already present in many PEPs and Docutils project
documents. From the Emacs manual (info):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A "local variables list" goes near the end of the file, in the
last page. (It is often best to put it on a page by itself.)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It would be unfortunate if this construct caused a final blank page
to be generated (for those Writers that recognize the page breaks).
We'll have to add a transform that looks for a "break" plus zero or
more comments at the end of a document, and removes them.</p>
<p>Probably a bad idea because there is no such thing as a page in a
generic document format.</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">Could the "break" concept above be extended to inline forms?
E.g. "^L" in the middle of a sentence could cause a line break.
Only recognize it at the end of a line (i.e., <tt class="docutils literal">\f\n</tt>)?</p>
<p>Or is formfeed inappropriate? Perhaps vertical tab (<tt class="docutils literal">\v</tt>), but
even that's a stretch. Can't use carriage returns, since they're
commonly used for line endings.</p>
<p>Probably a bad idea as well because we do not want to use control
characters for well-readable and well-writable markup, and after all
we have the line block syntax for line breaks.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="section" id="superscript-markup">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id63">Superscript Markup</a></h2>
<p>Add <tt class="docutils literal">^superscript^</tt> inline markup? The only common non-markup uses
of "^" I can think of are as short hand for "superscript" itself and
for describing control characters ("^C to cancel"). The former
supports the proposed syntax, and it could be argued that the latter
ought to be literal text anyhow (e.g. "<tt class="docutils literal">^C</tt> to cancel").</p>
<p>However, superscripts are seldom needed, and new syntax would break
existing documents. When it's needed, the <tt class="docutils literal">:superscript:</tt>
(<tt class="docutils literal">:sup:</tt>) role can we used as well.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="code-execution">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id64">Code Execution</a></h2>
<p>Add the following directives?</p>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">"exec": Execute Python code & insert the results. Call it
"python" to allow for other languages?</p>
</li>
<li><p class="first">"system": Execute an <tt class="docutils literal">os.system()</tt> call, and insert the results
(possibly as a literal block). Definitely dangerous! How to make
it safe? Perhaps such processing should be left outside of the
document, in the user's production system (a makefile or a script or
whatever). Or, the directive could be disabled by default and only
enabled with an explicit command-line option or config file setting.
Even then, an interactive prompt may be useful, such as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The file.txt document you are processing contains a "system"
directive requesting that the <tt class="docutils literal">sudo rm <span class="pre">-rf</span> /</tt> command be
executed. Allow it to execute? (y/N)</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
<li><p class="first">"eval": Evaluate an expression & insert the text. At parse
time or at substitution time? Dangerous? Perhaps limit to canned
macros; see <a class="reference external" href="../todo.html#text-date">text.date</a>.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>It's too dangerous (or too complicated in the case of "eval"). We do
not want to have such things in the core.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="encoding-directive">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id65"><tt class="docutils literal">encoding</tt> Directive</a></h2>
<p>Add an "encoding" directive to specify the character encoding of the
input data? Not a good idea for the following reasons:</p>
<ul class="simple">
<li>When it sees the directive, the parser will already have read the
input data, and encoding determination will already have been done.</li>
<li>If a file with an "encoding" directive is edited and saved with
a different encoding, the directive may cause data corruption.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="section" id="support-for-annotations">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id66">Support for Annotations</a></h2>
<p>Add an "annotation" role, as the equivalent of the HTML "title"
attribute? This is secondary information that may "pop up" when the
pointer hovers over the main text. A corresponding directive would be
required to associate annotations with the original text (by name, or
positionally as in anonymous targets?).</p>
<p>There have not been many requests for such feature, though. Also,
cluttering WYSIWYG plaintext with annotations may not seem like a good
idea, and there is no "tool tip" in formats other than HTML.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="term-role">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id67"><tt class="docutils literal">term</tt> Role</a></h2>
<p>Add a "term" role for unfamiliar or specialized terminology? Probably
not; there is no real use case, and emphasis is enough for most cases.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="object-references">
<h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id68">Object references</a></h2>
<p>We need syntax for <a class="reference external" href="../todo.html#object-numbering-and-object-references">object references</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><p class="first">Parameterized substitutions? For example:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
See |figure (figure name)| on |page (figure name)|.
.. |figure (name)| figure-ref:: (name)
.. |page (name)| page-ref:: (name)
</pre>
<p>The result would be:</p>
<pre class="literal-block">
See figure 3.11 on page 157.
</pre>
<p>But this would require substitution directives to be processed at
reference-time, not at definition-time as they are now. Or,
perhaps the directives could just leave <tt class="docutils literal">pending</tt> elements
behind, and the transforms do the work? How to pass the data
through? Too complicated. Use interpreted text roles.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<!-- Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
sentence-end-double-space: t
fill-column: 70
End: -->
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
|