From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2002-03-04T00:49:44+09:00
Subject: Re: RDoc question

Massimiliano Mirra <list@chromatic-harp.com> writes:

> One thing I like a lot about your concept of simple markup is that it
> looks very natural and clean, just as if was written for humans, not
> for program crunching.  Actually, I thought you expicitely intended it
> to be so.  (Whether I actually heard you say it or I went on and
> desumed it from the non-intrusive markup like `*' and `_', is the kind
> of question I wish my memory would be able to answer.)  I just don't
> how much parserDirective:<stuff> goes in the way of this.

That's right, that is the intention. Things like link: are definitely
supposed to be the exception.

What I propose is to see how (if) it's used in practice. If common
idioms arise, then we can invent shortcuts that eliminate the link:
part. For example, if link: is predominantly used to link to images, I
could arrange that any word ending in .gif, .jpg, etc is assumed to be
an image name and generate a link. The reason I'm not doing it
immediately is that I don't want to start generating false links:
assuming something is a link when it isn't supposed to be. So let's
wait a while and see what happens.


Dave