diff options
| author | goodger <goodger@929543f6-e4f2-0310-98a6-ba3bd3dd1d04> | 2002-10-17 03:26:03 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | goodger <goodger@929543f6-e4f2-0310-98a6-ba3bd3dd1d04> | 2002-10-17 03:26:03 +0000 |
| commit | 696b91c5403b0d61ee00a69eb5427f03fa387a20 (patch) | |
| tree | 47cc0cc4e5e1bc911071373d88fc61fdc6a0fcfb /docs/dev/rst | |
| parent | a91984c003e1f1ddff4cb4a6ff885381b0d6c155 (diff) | |
| download | docutils-696b91c5403b0d61ee00a69eb5427f03fa387a20.tar.gz | |
updated/fixedAdded "Doctree Representation of Transitions" from spec/doctree.txt.
git-svn-id: http://svn.code.sf.net/p/docutils/code/trunk/docutils@816 929543f6-e4f2-0310-98a6-ba3bd3dd1d04
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/dev/rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/dev/rst/alternatives.txt | 99 |
1 files changed, 99 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/dev/rst/alternatives.txt b/docs/dev/rst/alternatives.txt index f90320a03..b8a5aca29 100644 --- a/docs/dev/rst/alternatives.txt +++ b/docs/dev/rst/alternatives.txt @@ -1622,6 +1622,105 @@ be left up to the author? Perhaps if the syntax is *allowed* but its use strongly *discouraged*, for aesthetic reasons? Or would that just be hypocritical? Dilemma. + +Doctree Representation of Transitions +===================================== + +(Although not reStructuredText-specific, this section fits best in +this document.) + +Having added the "horizontal rule" construct to the `reStructuredText +Markup Specification`_, a decision had to be made as to how to reflect +the construct in the implementation of the document tree. Given this +source:: + + Document + ======== + + Paragraph 1 + + -------- + + Paragraph 2 + +The horizontal rule indicates a "transition" (in prose terms) or the +start of a new "division". Before implementation, the parsed document +tree would be:: + + <document> + <section name="document"> + <title> + Document + <paragraph> + Paragraph 1 + -------- <--- error here + <paragraph> + Paragraph 2 + +There are several possibilities for the implementation: + +1. Implement horizontal rules as "divisions" or segments. A + "division" is a title-less, non-hierarchical section. The first + try at an implementation looked like this:: + + <document> + <section name="document"> + <title> + Document + <paragraph> + Paragraph 1 + <division> + <paragraph> + Paragraph 2 + + But the two paragraphs are really at the same level; they shouldn't + appear to be at different levels. There's really an invisible + "first division". The horizontal rule splits the document body + into two segments, which should be treated uniformly. + +2. Treating "divisions" uniformly brings us to the second + possibility:: + + <document> + <section name="document"> + <title> + Document + <division> + <paragraph> + Paragraph 1 + <division> + <paragraph> + Paragraph 2 + + With this change, documents and sections will directly contain + divisions and sections, but not body elements. Only divisions will + directly contain body elements. Even without a horizontal rule + anywhere, the body elements of a document or section would be + contained within a division element. This makes the document tree + deeper. This is similar to the way HTML_ treats document contents: + grouped within a ``<body>`` element. + +3. Implement them as "transitions", empty elements:: + + <document> + <section name="document"> + <title> + Document + <paragraph> + Paragraph 1 + <transition> + <paragraph> + Paragraph 2 + + A transition would be a "point element", not containing anything, + only identifying a point within the document structure. This keeps + the document tree flatter, but the idea of a "point element" like + "transition" smells bad. A transition isn't a thing itself, it's + the space between two divisions. However, transitions are a + practical solution. + +Solution 3 was chosen for incorporation into the document tree model. + .. Local Variables: |