[ruby-talk:00703] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?)

On 19 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> [...]
>> >> >>Also used for email addresses?

[...]

> 
> In gotoken's idea, "((<...>))" has tree features (means).
> (1) Reference to Headlines and Term part of DescList.
> (2) Link with URL.
> (3) Reference to Bibliography.

Ah! Now I understand. But I would propose to use `((<...>))' only for
(2) as <...> at least reminds me on email addresses. To refer to things
like (1) or (2), I would propose `(([...]))', as references in written
literature are most often denoted with [...] like in your example below
([HF90]).  <--- Gotcha! ;-)

Furthermore I think that references like (2) are other beasts as used
in (1) and (2).

Opinions?

[...]
 
> Well,so this "((<[e-mail]>))" maybe refers Headline like
> "== [e-mail]", usage (1).
> This is a problem of "((<mail address>))".
> But we can regard String which contains "@" and "." and not contains /\s/
> as Mail Address probably. Do you think this rule "valid"? and "wished"?

Why restrictive? My proposal perhaps could solve the problem, couldn't
it? :-)

[...]

> 
> I can't agree with this suggestion. Maybe, if non-alphanumeric 
> character runs out, we want so much feature that RD cannot accept
> them.

I didn't make that as proposal! Only to show, the way would be open. If
there is a way doesn't mean one has to go it, neh? ;-)

[...]

> 
> I see.
> But if nobody use "((x ... x))" for Literal Meaning frequently, I think 
> using Inline Verbatim, "(('...'))", is not so bad idea.
> What do you think?

Ok! You are right :-)

> 
> [...]
>> Hmm... Why not saying that *every* `=begin <anything>' has to be
>> ignored by the rdtool? Only plain `=begin' would be accepted. So other
>> tools could use that feature also, to embed information in multiline
>> comments.
> 
> I think this feature of your suggestion is useful and powerful,
> but too powerful. if we allow this feature, we also come to allow
> "=begin html" maybe. I'm afraid that such a powerful feature may
> cause some trouble.
> I will try to think more and more deep about your suggestion, and
> make a decision after.

Perhaps you have misunderstood me. Because I didn't any longer propose
my selective ignore proposal. But I mean to ignore *all* that doesn't
begin with plain `=begin'.

[...]

> 
> "@input" originated from sample/rd2html.rb.
> If you disagree with "@input", I give another choice, "<<< filename".
> this is like a way of output to File instance, "$> << var", and also
> like a way of shell redirection, "< filename".
> 
> But "@input" or "<<< filename" feature has a problem. If you use it,
> you have to make file even if you want to insert one-line of HTML.:-(

That could be a good motivation to not use it too often, right? ;-)

[...]

> 
> But do we use "=begin <someting>" only for multiline comment? OK?
> Even if we use "@input" instead of "=begin html", we should think
> about extention in feature.

But my point remains standing, I think. *Now* we have no need for a
certain `=begin <something>'. So rd2xxx should ignore all such
comments. It should only work with, what is intended for it to work.

> 
> And gotoken suggested to use pair of "=begin <something>" and 
> "=end <something>" in [ruby-list:16142].

If in future we get a certain `=begin <something>' we could begin to
take it into consideration with rd2xxx. But then we should only again
only look for `=begin' and that special `=begin <something>'. All
others are ignore!

What `rd2xxx' doesn't know, should be ignored. So we are free for
extension not coming from the `rdtool' direction.

Opinions?

> 
> I think we need more and more dicussion about it...

Here we are ;-))))

> 
> ---
> Tosh

\cle