cweagans <[email protected]> writes: > That's also my reasoning for having it split into separate files. It's > a lot easier to selectively override elements of a document, IMHO, if > they are in separate files (not having to deal with figuring out why > data structure x doesn't contain the information that you think it > should)
You do have to find the correct files, though. We have had issues, recently, with blogpost and getting hold of the relevant files that it needs. I'd also say that with the single file approach, you are limiting yourself to the existing structure of the asciidoc. So, for example, rewriting the asciidoc tree is not really possible -- stuff is going to come out in the same order it went in. For example, recently I wanted to make asciidoc go from... Title ===== :author: Phil Abstract -------- But to produce: <title>Title</title> <h1>Abstract</h1> Stuff <h1>Author</h1> Phil Which I don't think will work in your system. Finally, what happens if I want to use a single function in several output layers. Then I have to have do some sort of library function. Basically, I think it would be much cleaner to have a single file (like now), with "h1" and "h2" functions. Someone asked about the cascading system that exists now, and how this would be replicated; you could now achieve this with straight forward object inheritance. So, you would have a class called "HTML4" and then another called "Wordpress" which would just inherit from HTML4. In essence, you'd be building a "SAX-u-like" parser -- asciidoc would parse the source, and call methods as things passed it's way. Phil -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
