|
From: Tony J I. (Tibs) <to...@ls...> - 2002-05-07 09:03:37
|
David Goodger wrote: > However, a literal block isn't really the ideal way to represent an > address block, is it? I've been mulling over an idea for a "verse" > directive which seems to apply here. See > http://docutils.sf.net/spec/notes.html#body-verse. What do you > think? How about that ';;' syntax? Hmm - a useful thing to be able to do. I suspect that this *allows* me to handle (although not necessarily in the way I'd like best) the majority of cases where I might want forced line breaks - in the same way that "::" allows me to handle most places where I want to escape a character. As you say, the outstanding question is interpretation of inline markup within a verse - i.e., in HTML terms, is it <pre> or not... Thinking *about* verses, I'd obviously argue for allowing inline markup, but am unfussed about lists (I don't have any examples *I can think of* of poetry that uses them, for instance). But I trust you to work out the details here, I think. I'm not *too* keen on the use of ";;", but it does have a clear analogy with "::", and it's unlikely to be used "by mistake". I assume the rules of how it appears are identical to those for "::"? (i.e., precede with a space to suppress a colon in the output?) (personally, a "..verse" (or even "..sing"!) directive would be OK by me as well...) Tibs ..pedant:: In the second poem, should "stint" be "skint"? -- Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/ "How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks." - Dorothy L. Sayers, "Gaudy Night" My views! Mine! Mine! (Unless Laser-Scan ask nicely to borrow them.) |