On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Stuart Rackham wrote:

> Dag Wieers wrote:
> > Since I worked on my own version and was recently finishing it for testing.
> > I noticed that on OpenSUSE with a newer vim the official asciidoc syntax
> > file was shipped already.
> > 
> > I then tried to merge what I already had with the official asciidoc syntax
> > file and this resulted in the file that is available from:
> > 
> >  http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/tools/asciidoc-vim/
> > 
> > My intention was to stay away from "highlight link" since it is incompatible
> > with vim < 6.0. Also I wanted to stay away from the default highlight
> > definitions since they are oriented at programming languages.
> > 
> > Secondly, current shells have capabilities like underlining and bold. And
> > gvim can even do italic. For that reason, I defined the style for most
> > highlight definitions myself, including term, cterm and gui.
> > 
> > I also added a few vim config settings that probably do not belong in this
> > file, but are very useful.
> > 
> > I like the coloring of this file over the official one as I tried to make
> > sure that the meaning of the color is consistent over different Docbook
> > tags. (eg. yellow means monospace, visible part of link is yellow so it is
> > clearer to see how the document will look when processed, titles are
> > underlined, document title is bold, etc...)
> > 
> > When I merged both files, I also improved some of the regular expressions.
> > 
> > Feedback welcome !
> I've tried your syntax file -- it works well!
> As for the colors that I implemented, I aimed for consistency (titles magenta,
> monospace text cyan, attributes red ...) and I just choose the set of colors
> that appealed to me most -- but since we all perceive colors differently it
> certainly won't appeal to everyone.

Right, my preference however would be to merge both syntax files and take 
the best of each. Like I said I noticed you only use the predefined colors 
which is very limited. (No bold or italic, no underline, some colors 

And those do not make use of the capabailities for ctext and gui properly. 
I was hoping the default asciidoc syntax file could at least introduce 
those improvements as well.

The colors to me are not that important as long as there is consistency.
I aimed for using bright colors for content and less bright colors for 

I used yellow for monospace or literal, bold for bold, italic for italic 
and underline for underline. I also underline the non-underline title 
syntax as well as a definition lists, links and example/table titles.

For links I also made sure that the visible part is yellow and the link 
information is purple. So that if there is no link title, the link is 
yellow. That way you have an idea how the text looks for real.

I also put the document title in bold so it stands out from other titles.

> I've put a link on the 'Vim Syntax Highlighter' section of the AsciiDoc home
> page to your project, and in the next release's User Guide.

I'd rather not maintain it seperately.

Thanks in advance,
--   dag wieers,  [EMAIL PROTECTED],  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]

Asciidoc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to