David Abrahams wrote:
Well, as long as we're being slaves to the DocBook structure, why not
have some standard syntax for new elements so we don't have to escape
to XML or modify the QB grammar every time we want to do something
new? In fact, why isn't
[xxx ... ]
automatically equivalent to
<xxx> .... </xxx>
when xxx is not already given special meaning by QB?
An interesting idea. One concern would be that this could run amok and
apply where people don't mean it to (like the ill-advised
-strikethrough- syntax which we had to strike). Then again, if people
are writing Qbk files, they have to be aware of the special-ness of
square brackets anyway.
We would have to decide if these wildcards were treated as phrase-level
or block-level constructs. Probably phrase-level.
It could create a back-compat problem, though. Imagine we had this
feature, and people used it to get xyzzy support. Now when I added
explicit support for xyzzy, I might break a whole bunch of Qbk files.
I think a better, saner way to do this might be like:
[phrase:xyzzy Blah blah blah]
which would be treated as phrase-level markup and get expanded into:
<xyzzy>Blah blah blah</xyzzy>
Comments?
--
Eric Niebler
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
