On 18 April 2014 17:57, Stéphane Gourichon <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Only those beginners that use dblatex and default tex. Anybody using fop (and HTML) do not have the problem. Thats why I mused that maybe fop should be the default pdf generator (apart from the fact that its also more compliant). [...] > >> 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. Just send a patch to dblatex to use a Unicode compliant version of tex :) > > >> 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]] or if you are like me [[mt]] :) > == 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. Yep, if an explicit id is specified no automatic one is generated. > > 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. I don't like the idea of making a nasty hack workaround for one broken toolchain the default, but more importantly it will break all existing documents that do refer to autogenerated section ids. > > 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. Yes, but boring and messy. > > 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. It will break existing documents that refer to autogenerated ids. Having archived documents fail to generate properly is a bad thing :( Cheers Lex > > 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. -- 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.
