On May 3, 2009, at 5:54 AM, Christophe de VIENNE wrote: > > > 2009/5/2 Georg Brandl <ge...@python.org> > > Now we have a few choices: > > - Keep the incompatibility. > - Rename Sphinx' "class". I don't have a suggestion for a better > name though. > > I would go for this option (renaming). And I think it is a change > that is acceptable for 1.0 release. > My point is that having an incompatibility with docutils will always > raise issues, and since changing docutils seems less realistic, it > leaves only one option. > One change path you could follow is to add the new name in the next > 0.6 release, but keeping the class alias and raise warning when it > is used.
+1 on warning in the next point release and generating an error in 1.0. > > > Now for the new name the only one I can think of is "pclass" (for > python class). But if Sphinx is used for documenting other languages > the rational of this name is lost. If "cssclass" becomes "class" to match docutils, you could make the "class" for describing code something like "codeclass" to make it explicitly code-related. Doug --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sphinx-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to sphinx-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sphinx-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sphinx-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
