On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Lex Trotman wrote:
I have to disagree about this, comment blocks are meant to not generate output, we should not change that in a backward incompatible way. Using the same markup in different ways in different backends is a "bad thing" (tm).
I wasn't talking about comment blocks, but commented lines.
However adding a new block output type as Stuart suggested should be ok. But the terminology needs to be clear. It should be easy to make it clear that you are talking about a comment block which doesn't produce output or comment xxx that does.
That's why I called it an annotation block.
It looks to me to be another form of annotation with author and date options. So long as you can suggest backends for html and docbook that generate the same look as ODT then it should be ok to be added to standard asciidoc. A comment annotation should be sufficiently different from a comment block to be easy to distinguish.
But for working with AsciiDoc files, comments are a lot more convenient than annotation blocks as proposed by Stuart IMNSHO.
However I did implement it now, updated the README and added examples to the test-odt.txt. Annotations are also described in the DocBook syntax.
-- -- dag wieers, [email protected], http://dag.wieers.com/ -- dagit linux solutions, [email protected], http://dagit.net/ [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] -- 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.
