On 30/04/12 21:27 +0200, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > A Dilluns, 30 d'abril de 2012 20:36:14, Cédric Krier va escriure: > > On 30/04/12 19:52 +0200, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > > > A Dilluns, 20 de febrer de 2012 12:51:56, Albert Cervera i Areny va > escriure: > > > > > For inline usage, why not using the same syntax as sphinx inline. It > > > > > > > > > > could be something like: > > > > > :field:`ir.cron/user` > > > > > > > > What you suggest is named a role in sphinx terms. When I looked at the > > > > docs to find out how to implement this, my understanding was that I > > > > needed a Directive instead but I may be wrong. Will take a look at > > > > this. > > > > > > I rechecked that, and I still think that we need the inline syntax I > > > proposed. The problem with sphinx's inline syntax is that you cannot > > > have one role inside another one so you cannot make your inline field > > > bold, for example. So > > > > > > the following is not allowed: > > > *:field:`ir.cron/user`* > > > > Is it really a problem compared to the homogeneity of the text. > > IMHO, yes. I think it'd be quite usual that users wanted to use bold or > italics with field names.
Could it be supporte? Or always put it in italic, I think it is not bad to have all those dynamic fields have the same style. > That said, I have not pushed it yet, but I've got the > implementation using a role, so all options would be available. I find having both is worse. -- Cédric Krier B2CK SPRL Rue de Rotterdam, 4 4000 Liège Belgium Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Email/Jabber: cedric.kr...@b2ck.com Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgp7J1vOTZOPZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
