Felix Obenhuber wrote: > On 03 Feb 07 - 13:32, Dag Wieers wrote: >> Is there a way to make this happen ? Eventually I did ':set syntax=adoc' >> and that gave me some colors. > > I'm using > > autocmd BufNewFile *.txt source ~/.vim/txt.vimrc > autocmd BufRead *.txt source ~/.vim/txt.vimrc > > to get the vim adjustments described at the asciidoc site and to > > set syn=adoc > > so the file is expected as syntax file... Thinks that there are lots of > possibilities to get a syntax file working but don't know whats the best and > smartest way. > >> Secondly, although the syntax file is a vast improvement, some things are >> not working. I have no understanding of writing syntax files but it would >> be desirable if eg. > > Let me say that the file was a quick and dirty action. I had to write a small > article with a fellow student and he complained about "the editor interface". > It > was the first time he used something different to openoffice and word... So I > took the twiki syntax file and adopted 'partly' to asciidoc. Sure I know that > theres only a very small subset definend and the regex used are crappy over > and > over. I've been in doubt about announcing it here because of being ashame... > After sending my previous post I took a look at the file and noticed that some > Twiki elements are also included... :-/. Release often and early...so we're > here. > >> - comments (//// comment ////) were marked as such. >> >> - titles are coloured as well (not just the lines) when you use the >> syntax >> >> this is a title >> --------------- > > I intend to use the ==sometitle format. We should first of all consider which > elements we want to have coloured. Could imagine that a file blinking like a > christmas tree won't be usable anymore. Things what IMHO definitly should be > marked > are: > > * [[foo]] > * <<bar>> > * titles > * comments > * maybe links > >> - bullets are coloured (first level is not coloured, second is ?) >> >> Lastly, I found a problem with the URL syntax where you have named links >> like eg. http://dag.wieers.com/[Dag Wieers' Homepage]. The current syntax >> colours only up to [Dag . > > As you see - there's something to do... > >> Now, what would be required to have the adoc.syntax shipped with the next >> release of vim (even in an incomplete state) and with the next >> release of asciidoc ? This way packagers can place the syntax file in the >> asciidoc package until it gets shipped with vim. > > Would be great, but in the current state of the file there's no way to ship it > without driving some people who are familiar with regex and vim to madness ;-) > >> Also, what is the reason this is called adoc.vim and not eg. asciidoc.vim ? >> Is adoc going to be the 'standard' extension for asciidoc ? > > Ohh. Don't think so. I'll rename to the syntax name defined in the file to > asciidoc. > The binding between file suffix and syntax can be individualy done as decribed > above... > > Stuart: did you define any naming conventions?
The only file name conventions I observe are: - The standard text file .txt extension for AsciiDoc source -- AsciiDoc source files are text and files and are used as human readable text files so the .txt extension makes sense. - The text files generated by a2x default to the .text extension to distinguish them from the .txt source file and so as not to overwrite the .txt source file. > >> Nevertheless, I'm grateful for your initiative :) > > Thanks. Take this as ignition spark. As you've seen my vim and regex skills > are > quite poor so feel free to rewrite, extend or anything else. > > cheers, > > Felix > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Asciidoc-discuss mailing list > Asciidoc-discuss@metaperl.com > http://metaperl.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asciidoc-discuss Cheers, Stuart _______________________________________________ Asciidoc-discuss mailing list Asciidoc-discuss@metaperl.com http://metaperl.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asciidoc-discuss
