Thank you Lex for these explanations.
It appears to me that far from being a danger (neither for beginners nor
for seasoned users), ascii-ids actually solves a problem that hits
beginners with simple documents.
Le 29/03/2014 00:51, Lex Trotman a écrit :
he user has to
transform references manually, that is they need to know the algorithm
in detail
This is of course untractable. Even a good programmer doesn't feel right
about such a solution.
Unfortunately one of those is
Tex, so sadly I don't see the problem going away soon.
Since as you said TeX workflow only accepts ascii ids, it looks like we
must use it or we're doomed.
4. You can avoid all the palaver by giving those titles manual, ascii
only, ids which override the automatic ones.
So, doing like below is safe, right ?
[my_chapter_title]
== My chapter title
(...)
For details refer to <<my_chapter_title>>.
I was worried about doing something wrong, but actually it looks like
with this pattern applied there is no problem.
More importantly, activating ascii-ids solved an important problem that
affects beginners.
By "beginner" I mean a simple usage with no cross-ref, just text and
chapter titles.
When first trying asciidoc a moment ago I was shocked to discover that
whenever I had a chapter title with an accent, the whole thing was
broken (well, for the LaTeX toolchain at least). That's a very bad
signal to users, it says the software is fragile and drives away people
of many languages.
With ascii-ids enabled no problem happens to simple documents. Users of
cross-references choose explicit ids.
For this reason, ascii-ids should actually become default.
Ids are ids, technical objects. They should not be computed from (or be
equal to) chapter title, anyway. Adjusting a chapter title does not
change the chapter identity. If the chapter title is the id, adjusting a
chapter title breaks all references to that chapter. For that reason,
making an explicit id ensures identity and is the right thing to do.
Then, the documentation could just say "Warning : it is encouraged for
portability to use only ascii characters in ids, because some toolchains
only accept that. If you are sure your document will only ever target a
single toolchain that will always support non-ascii ids, then you can
use all characters in ids."
Then I can't find a remaining reason for ascii-ids not being default.
Please tell me if I'm clear.
-- Stéphane Gourichon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"asciidoc" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
