[ruby-talk:00706] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?)

Hi,

> > 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... I suppose "((<...>))" has too much feature in gotoken's idea.
It is good idea that we use different brace for reference to Element of Doc
and resource of Internet. 
And do we need reference to bibliography?? I don't think so...

> [...]
>  
> > 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? :-)

You may be right.

> [...]
> 
> > 
> > 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? ;-)

Oh, that is my misunderstanding.

> [...]
> 
> > 
> > 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'.

Oh....
I assumed that your proposal include to require ANY formatter of RD to
have a feature like "-use" and "-notuse" of [ruby-talk:687]. But it is
my misunderstanding. I understand that we use "=begin <something>" for
multiline comment and proper extension of RD formatters in your porposal.
I suppose it is nice.:-)

> [...]
> 
> > 
> > "@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? ;-)

OK!

> > 
> > 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?

Sorry, my explanation wasn't enough.
In Goto's proposal, we should write "<something>" not only after "=begin"
but also after "=end" to make sure and to show that text between 
"=begin <something>" and "=end <something>" is NOT RD.
This is proposal not for semantics but for grammar.

---
Tosh