| Author: | David Goodger |
|---|---|
| Contact: | goodger@users.sourceforge.net |
| Revision: | 1.2 |
| Date: | 2005-04-19 15:25:35 -0500 (Tue, 19 Apr 2005) |
The following are ideas, alternatives, and justifications that were considered for reStructuredText syntax, which did not originate with Setext or StructuredText. For an analysis of constructs which did originate with StructuredText or Setext, please see Problems With StructuredText. See the reStructuredText Markup Specification for full details of the established syntax.
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.
Allow for compound enumerators, such as "1.1." or "1.a." or "1(a)", to allow for nested enumerated lists without indentation?
Perhaps the indentation shouldn't be so strict. Currently, this is required:
1. First line, second line.
Anything wrong with this?
1. First line, second line.
Problem?
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?
Hmm... Non-strict indentation isn't such a good idea.
Another approach: Going back to the first draft of reStructuredText (2000-11-27 post to Doc-SIG):
- 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.
Change that to require 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.
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.
The following example shows the lazy indentation of multiple body elements:
- 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.
A more complex example shows the limitations of lazy indentation:
- 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.
And the ambiguity remains:
- 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.
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:
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.
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).
Prior to the syntax for field lists being finalized, several alternatives were proposed.
Unadorned RFC822 everywhere:
Author: Me Version: 1
Advantages: clean, precedent (RFC822-compliant). Disadvantage: ambiguous (these paragraphs are a prime example).
Conclusion: rejected.
Special case: use unadorned RFC822 for the very first or very last text block of a document:
""" Author: Me Version: 1 The rest of the document... """
Advantages: clean, precedent (RFC822-compliant). Disadvantages: special case, flat (unnested) field lists only, still ambiguous:
""" Usage: cmdname [options] arg1 arg2 ... We obviously *don't* want the like above to be interpreted as a field list item. Or do we? """
Conclusion: rejected for the general case, accepted for specific contexts (PEPs, email).
Use a directive:
.. fields:: Author: Me Version: 1
Advantages: explicit and unambiguous, RFC822-compliant. Disadvantage: cumbersome.
Conclusion: rejected for the general case (but such a directive could certainly be written).
Use Javadoc-style:
@Author: Me @Version: 1 @param a: integer
Advantages: unambiguous, precedent, flexible. Disadvantages: non-intuitive, ugly, not RFC822-compliant.
Conclusion: rejected.
Use leading colons:
:Author: Me :Version: 1
Advantages: unambiguous, obvious (almost RFC822-compliant), flexible, perhaps even elegant. Disadvantages: no precedent, not quite RFC822-compliant.
Conclusion: accepted!
Use double colons:
Author:: Me Version:: 1
Advantages: unambiguous, obvious? (almost 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.
Conclusion: rejected because of the syntax similarity & conflicts.
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 would be easy to get used to an alternative (easy even to convert PEPs; probably harder to convert python-deviants ;-).
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.
The following question was posed in a footnote:
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?
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.
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.
Interpreted text is enclosed in single backquotes (`).
Initially, it was proposed that an explicit role could be indicated as a word or phrase within the enclosing backquotes:
As a prefix, separated by a colon and whitespace:
`role: interpreted text`
As a suffix, separated by whitespace and a colon:
`interpreted text :role`
There are problems with the initial approach:
Tony Ibbs suggested that the role be placed outside the backquotes:
role:`prefix` or `suffix`:role
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.
The suggested syntax remains ambiguous with respect to ratios and some writing styles. For example, suppose there is a "signal" identifier, and we write:
...calculate the `signal`:noise ratio.
"noise" looks like a role.
As an improvement on #2, we can bracket the role with colons:
:role:`prefix` or `suffix`:role:
This syntax is similar to that of field lists, which is fine since both are doing similar things: describing.
This is the syntax chosen for reStructuredText.
Another alternative is two colons instead of one:
role::`prefix` or `suffix`::role
But this is used for analogies ("A:B::C:D": "A is to B as C is to D").
Both alternative #2 and #4 lack delimiters on both sides of the role, making it difficult to parse (by the reader).
Some kind of bracketing could be used:
Parentheses:
(role)`prefix` or `suffix`(role)
Braces:
{role}`prefix` or `suffix`{role}
Square brackets:
[role]`prefix` or `suffix`[role]
Angle brackets:
<role>`prefix` or `suffix`<role>
(The overlap of *ML tags with angle brackets would be too confusing and precludes their use.)
Syntax #3 was chosen for reStructuredText.
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.
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.
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.
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 not swallow up indented blocks following it, so block quotes are safe. "A tiny but practical wart." Accepted.
Alan Jaffray came up with this idea, along with the following syntax:
Search the `Python DOC-SIG mailing list archives`{}_.
.. _: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/
The idea is sound and useful. I suggested a "double underscore" syntax:
Search the `Python DOC-SIG mailing list archives`__. .. __: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/
But perhaps single underscores are okay? The syntax looks better, but the hyperlink itself doesn't explicitly say "anonymous":
Search the `Python DOC-SIG mailing list archives`_. .. _: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/
Mixing anonymous and named hyperlinks becomes confusing. The order of targets is not significant for named hyperlinks, but it is for anonymous hyperlinks:
Hyperlinks: anonymous_, named_, and another anonymous_. .. _named: named .. _: anonymous1 .. _: anonymous2
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.
reStructuredText will use the explicit double-underscore syntax for anonymous hyperlinks. An alternative (see Reworking Explicit Markup below) for the somewhat awkward ".. __:" syntax is "__":
An anonymous__ reference. __ http://anonymous
Alan Jaffray came up with the idea of anonymous hyperlinks, 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.
Original syntax:
.. _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
Note
The comment text was intentionally made to look like a hyperlink target.
Origins:
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Alan Jaffray's proposed syntax #1:
__ _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
The hyperlink-connoted underscores have become first-level syntax.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
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:
__ blah: internal hyperlink target
Obtrusive markup?
Alan Jaffray's proposed syntax #2:
.. _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
Leading underscores have been (almost) replaced by "..", while comments and directives have gained their own syntax.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
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:
.. blah: internal hyperlink target
All (except for internal) hyperlink targets lack their leading underscores, losing the "hyperlink" connotation.
Obtrusive syntax for comments. Alternatives:
;; blah: http://somewhere
(also comment syntax in Lisp & others)
,, blah: http://somewhere
("comma comma": sounds like "comment"!)
Iffy syntax for directives. Alternatives?
Tony Ibbs' proposed syntax:
.. _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
This is the same as the current syntax, except for anonymous targets which drop their "__: ".
Advantage:
Disadvantages:
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:
.. __: anonymous internal target .. __: http://somewhere anonymous external target .. __: blahblah_ anonymous indirect target __ anonymous internal target __ http://somewhere anonymous external target __ blahblah_ anonymous indirect target
Alternative 5 has been adopted.
[From a 2001-06-05 Doc-SIG post in reply to questions from Doug Hellmann.]
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:
The original inspiration for the trailing underscore hyperlink syntax was Setext. But for phrases Setext used a very cumbersome underscores_between_words_like_this_ syntax.
The underscores can be viewed as if they were right-pointing arrows: -->. So hyperlink_ points away from the reference, and .. _hyperlink: points toward the target.
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).
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):
The |biohazard| symbol must be used on containers used to dispose of medical waste. .. |biohazard| image:: biohazard.png [height=20 width=20]
The |biohazard| substitution reference will be replaced in-line by whatever the .. |biohazard| 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.
Syntax alternatives for the reference:
Use the existing interpreted text syntax, with a predefined role such as "sub":
The `biohazard`:sub: symbol...
Advantages: existing syntax, explicit. Disadvantages: verbose, obtrusive.
Use a variant of the interpreted text syntax, with a new suffix akin to the underscore in phrase-link references:
(a) `name`@ (b) `name`# (c) `name`& (d) `name`/ (e) `name`< (f) `name`:: (g) `name`:
Due to incompatibility with other constructs and ordinary text usage, (f) and (g) are not possible.
Use interpreted text syntax with a fixed internal format:
(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'`
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).
The `/name/` 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.
A disadvantage of all of these is that they limit interpreted text, albeit only slightly.
Use specialized syntax, something new:
(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<
"#" (a) and "@" (b) are obtrusive. "/" (c) without backquotes looks just like a POSIX path; it is likely for such usage to appear in text.
"|" (d) and "^" (h) are feasible.
Redefine the trailing underscore syntax. See definition syntax alternative 4, below.
Syntax alternatives for the definition:
Use the existing directive syntax, with a predefined directive such as "sub". It contains a further embedded directive resolving to an inline-compatible object:
.. 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!
The advantages and disadvantages are the same as in inline alternative 1.
Use syntax as in #1, but with an embedded directivecompressed:
.. sub:: biohazard image:: biohazard.png [height=20 width=20]
This is a bit better than alternative 1, but still too much.
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:
.. |biohazard| image:: biohazard.png [height=20 width=20]
(Suggested by Alan Jaffray on Doc-SIG from 2001-11-06.)
Instead of adding new syntax, redefine the trailing underscore syntax to mean "substitution reference" instead of "hyperlink reference". Alan's example:
I had lunch with Jonathan_ today. We talked about Zope_. .. _Jonathan: lj [user=jhl] .. _Zope: http://www.zope.org/
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:
I had lunch with Jonathan_ today. We talked about Zope_. .. _Jonathan: lj:: user=jhl .. _Zope: http://www.zope.org/
(:: after .. _Jonathan: lj.)
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.
This seems too indirect and complicated for easy comprehension.
The reference in the text will sometimes become a link, sometimes not. Sometimes the reference text will remain, sometimes not. We don't know at the reference:
This is a `hyperlink reference`_; its text will remain. This is an `inline icon`_; its text will disappear.
That's a problem.
The syntax that has been incorporated into the spec and parser is reference alternative 4d with definition alternative 3:
The |biohazard| symbol... .. |biohazard| image:: biohazard.png [height=20 width=20]
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:
The |biohazard|_ symbol... .. |biohazard| image:: biohazard.png [height=20 width=20] .. _biohazard: http://www.cdc.gov/
There have been several suggestions for the naming of these constructs, originally called "substitution references" and "substitutions".
"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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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!
As a further wrinkle (see Reworking Explicit Markup above), in the wee hours of 2002-02-28 I posted several ideas for changes to footnote syntax:
- Change footnote syntax from .. [1] to _[1]? ...
- Differentiate (with new DTD elements) author-date "citations" ([GVR2002]) from numbered footnotes? ...
- Render footnote references as superscripts without "[]"? ...
These ideas are all related, and suggest changes in the reStructuredText syntax as well as the docutils tree model.
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").
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.
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.
Syntax proposals:
Footnotes:
Current syntax:
.. [1] Footnote 1 .. [#] Auto-numbered footnote. .. [#label] Auto-labeled footnote.
The syntax proposed in the original 2002-02-28 Doc-SIG post: remove the ".. ", prefix a "_":
_[1] Footnote 1 _[#] Auto-numbered footnote. _[#label] Auto-labeled footnote.
The leading underscore syntax (earlier dropped because .. _[1]: was too verbose) is a useful reminder that footnotes are hyperlink targets.
Minimal syntax: remove the ".. [" and "]", prefix a "_", and suffix a ".":
_1. Footnote 1.
_#. Auto-numbered footnote.
_#label. Auto-labeled footnote.
``_1.``, ``_#.``, and ``_#label.`` are markers,
like list markers.
Footnotes could be rendered something like this in HTML
| 1. This is a footnote. The brackets could be dropped | from the label, and a vertical bar could set them | off from the rest of the document in the HTML.
Two-way hyperlinks on the footnote marker ("1." above) would also help to differentiate footnotes from enumerated lists.
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.
Footnote references:
Current syntax:
[1]_, [#]_, [#label]_
Minimal syntax to match the minimal footnote syntax above:
1_, #_, #label_
As a consequence, pure-numeric hyperlink references would not be possible; they'd be interpreted as footnote references.
Citation references: no change is proposed from the current footnote reference syntax:
[GVR2001]_
Citations:
Current syntax (footnote syntax):
.. [GVR2001] Python Documentation; van Rossum, Drake, et al.; http://www.python.org/doc/
Possible new syntax:
_[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/
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):
_[GVR2001] Python Documentation; van Rossum, Drake, et al.;
http://www.python.org/doc/
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.
From a reply by Tony Ibbs on 2002-03-01:
However, I think easier with examples, so let's create one:
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.and look at it with the second syntax proposal:
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.(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).
and the third (new) proposal:
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.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.
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 [1]_ over the proposed 1_), and ambivalent over the proposed target change.
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!).
From a reply by Paul Moore on 2002-03-01:
I think the current footnote syntax [1]_ is exactly the right balance of distinctness vs unobtrusiveness. I very definitely don't think this should change.
On the target change, it doesn't matter much to me.
From a further reply by Tony Ibbs on 2002-03-01, referring to the "[1]" form and actual usage in email:
Clearly this is a form people are used to, and thus we should consider it strongly (in the same way that the usage of *..* to mean emphasis was taken partly from email practise).
Equally clearly, there is something "magical" for people in the use of a similar form (i.e., [1]) for both footnote reference and footnote target - it seems natural to keep them similar.
...
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 ".." and a leading underline for hyperlink targets.
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.
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).
Use the "#" symbol. Example:
#. Item 1. #. Item 2. #. Item 3.
Advantages: simple, explicit. Disadvantage: enumeration sequence cannot be specified (limited to arabic numerals); ugly.
As a variation on #1, first initialize the enumeration sequence? For example:
a) Item a. #) Item b. #) Item c.
Advantages: simple, explicit, any enumeration sequence possible. Disadvantages: ugly; perhaps confusing with mixed concrete/abstract enumerators.
Alternative suggested by Fred Bremmer, from experience with MoinMoin:
1. Item 1. 1. Item 2. 1. Item 3.
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).
Take this input for example:
1. Item 1. 1. Unintentional duplicate of item 1. 2. Item 2.
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?
Fred has produced a patch, whose initial behavior is as follows:
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
(After the "[WARNING]", the "3" would begin a new list.)
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 do 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.
In response, Fred came up with "a stricter and more explicit rule [which] would be to only auto-number silently if all the enumerators of a list were identical". In that case:
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
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")?
Alternative proposed by Tony Ibbs:
#1. First item. #3. Aha - I edited this in later. #2. Second item.
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.
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:
Advantages: explicit, any enumeration sequence possible. Disadvantages: a bit ugly.
Currently reStructuredText has two hyperlink syntax variations:
Named hyperlinks:
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/
Anonymous hyperlinks (in current reStructuredText):
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/
For comparison and historical background, StructuredText also has two syntaxes for hyperlinks:
First, "reference text":URL:
This is a "reference":http://www.example.org/reference/
of one word ("reference"). Here is a "phrase
reference":http://www.example.org/phrase_reference/.
Second, "reference text", http://example.com/absolute_URL:
This is a "reference", http://www.example.org/reference/
of one word ("reference"). Here is a "phrase reference",
http://www.example.org/phrase_reference/.
Both syntaxes share advantages and disadvantages:
A new type of "inline external hyperlink" has been proposed.
On 2002-06-28, Simon Budig proposed a new syntax for reStructuredText hyperlinks:
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.
The syntax, advantages, and disadvantages are similar to those of StructuredText.
After an analysis of the syntax of (1) above, we came up with the following compromise syntax:
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.
The syntax builds on that of the existing "inline internal targets": an _`inline internal target`.
To alleviate the readability issue slightly, we could allow the target to appear later, such as after the end of the sentence:
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/>
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).
The "reference__ __<target>" syntax is actually for "anonymous inline external targets", emphasized by the double underscores. It follows that single trailing and leading underscores would lead to implicitly named inline external targets. This would allow the reuse of targets by name. So after "reference_ _<target>", another "reference_" would point to the same target.
| [1] | From RFC 2396 (URI syntax):
From RFC 822 (email headers):
|
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:
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/>`__.
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.
We'll call this variant "embedded URIs".
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 "`reference text __<http://example.com/>`__"), or require the odd conflicting title to be escaped (like "`HTML Anchors: \<a>`__"). The latter seems preferable, and not too onerous.
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.
I think this is the least objectionable of the syntax alternatives.
Other syntax variations have been proposed (by Brett Cannon and Benja Fallenstein):
`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>_
None of these variations are clearly superior to #3 above. Some have problems that exclude their use.
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.
The proponents of inline external targets want them for easily maintainable web pages. The arguments go something like this:
Named hyperlinks are difficult to maintain because the reference text is duplicated as the target name.
To which I said, "So use anonymous hyperlinks."
Anonymous hyperlinks are difficult to maintain becuase the references and targets have to be kept in sync.
"So keep the targets close to the references, grouped after each paragraph. Maintenance is trivial."
But targets grouped after paragraphs break the flow of text.
"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?"
Many participants have voiced their objections to the proposed syntax:
Garth Kidd: "I strongly prefer the current way of doing it. Inline is spectactularly messy, IMHO."
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."
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."
Others have voiced their support:
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."
Ken Manheimer: "I'd like to weigh in requesting some kind of easy, direct inline reference link."
(Interesting that those against the proposal have been using reStructuredText for a while, and those for the proposal are either new to the list ["fantasai", background unknown] or longtime StructuredText users [Ken Manheimer].)
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 allowed but its use strongly discouraged, for aesthetic/readability reasons?
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.
(Although not reStructuredText-specific, this section fits best in this document.)
Having added the "horizontal rule" construct to the reStructuredText Markup Specification, a decision had to be made as to how to reflect the construct in the implementation of the document tree. Given this source:
Document ======== Paragraph 1 -------- Paragraph 2
The horizontal rule indicates a "transition" (in prose terms) or the start of a new "division". Before implementation, the parsed document tree would be:
<document>
<section name="document">
<title>
Document
<paragraph>
Paragraph 1
-------- <--- error here
<paragraph>
Paragraph 2
There are several possibilities for the implementation:
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:
<document>
<section name="document">
<title>
Document
<paragraph>
Paragraph 1
<division>
<paragraph>
Paragraph 2
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.
Treating "divisions" uniformly brings us to the second possibility:
<document>
<section name="document">
<title>
Document
<division>
<paragraph>
Paragraph 1
<division>
<paragraph>
Paragraph 2
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 HTML treats document contents: grouped within a <body> element.
Implement them as "transitions", empty elements:
<document>
<section name="document">
<title>
Document
<paragraph>
Paragraph 1
<transition>
<paragraph>
Paragraph 2
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.
Solution 3 was chosen for incorporation into the document tree model.