IMHO, the indenting hassle is one of the best features of "classic"
STX.  It's a pain to line things up but it does make for very
readable source documents.  I think STX-NG is a little better than
ReST for constructing readable source docs; especially if they are
long, like chapters of a book due to this indenting.

I would agree that if the source doc is less important than its
rendering to HTML (or another format), reST has STX beat in many
areas.  ReST also has an enormous amount of specification and
documentation, which counts for a lot.  Personally, I will likely
stick with STX-NG as well (at least for the foreseeable future),
because I am comfortable with its weaknesses and I also have a
fairly large corpus of documents that are written in STX and there
has not yet been written (that I know of) a classic-STX-to-reST

- C

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "David Goodger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 12:24 PM
Subject: [Zope-dev] Re: Future of StructuredText

> Andreas Jung wrote:
> > I would be fine to have reStructuredText inside the Zope core
(for 2.7)
> > and to deprecate the current StructuredText in the long run.
> My two cents - there are some things in rST I would like to have
but I
> think it has gone too far with it's rules. If I had to choose one
or the
> other right now I would stick with stxNG for simplicity and
because it
> doesn't dictate things unnecessarily.
> I think the number one problem with stx for most people is the
> hassle.
> These markups are evolving and I don't think we've seen the best
> yet. is another which
> good to me, check it out.
> -Simon
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> **  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
> (Related lists -
> )

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to