headers
David Goodger | 1 Jul 2003 03:24
Favicon

Re: A plan for configuration files

Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> I'll propose that since the only difference between a simple wrapper
> (== simple application) and a complex application (== really fancy
> tool) is in the implementation of that tool.  So the distinction
> should not appear in the configuration machinery at all.
...

Good points.  And since there's an undesirable connotation in the
word "tool" ;-), I think I'll use "application" for all, even
3-line wrappers.

-- David Goodger

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David Goodger | 1 Jul 2003 04:29
Favicon

[ANN] Character entity sets for reStructuredText

I have generated files containing substitution definitions (that use
the "unicode" directive) and temporarily posted them here:
<http://docutils.sf.net/tmp/charents/> (tarball:
<http://docutils.sf.net/tmp/charents.tgz>).  A description and
instructions for use are here:
<http://docutils.sf.net/tmp/charents/README.html>`__.  Thanks to David
Priest for the original idea.  Incorporating these files into Docutils
is on the to-do list.

I'm thinking of adding these to Docutils in a built-in "include"
directory.  From the to-do list:

     Default directory for "built-in includes", using the C syntax
     ``#include <name>``?

         Use C-preprocessor semantics for locating include files?
         E.g., ``.. include:: file.txt`` will read another file into
         the current one, relative to the current file's directory, and
         ``.. include:: <standard>`` will read a standard include file
         from ``docutils/include/``.  (Should "quotes" be required
         around non-standard include files?)

         -- http://sf.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=1938401

     I now think that ``docutils/parsers/rst/include/`` is a better
     place for these files, since they're reStructuredText-specific.

     Keeping standard data files together with the package code makes
     sense to me.  It seems much less complex to implement than a
     separate system data directory, such as ``/usr/share/docutils``.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Fred L. Drake, Jr. | 1 Jul 2003 15:59
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: A plan for configuration files


David Goodger writes:
 > Good points.  And since there's an undesirable connotation in the
 > word "tool" ;-), I think I'll use "application" for all, even
 > 3-line wrappers.

Sheesh, is there no end to political correctness?  I dread the day I
walk into my local hardware store and have to visit the application
section to buy a hammer.

--sigh--

  -Fred

--

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.  <fdrake at acm.org>
PythonLabs at Zope Corporation

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marcus J. Ertl | 2 Jul 2003 18:06
Picon

the other way round...

Hi!

Has someone allready tried to transform (simple) html back to reST?

Background:
I'm working on a threaded discussion board, allowing users to use
different message text formats for their postings:

- reST
- STX
- UBB-Codes
- HTML (with WYSIWY-Editor?)

In case of quoting I have to convert one textformat to another.

My approach for doing this, would be: transforming each format to an
simple html text and trying to convert this to reST,  STX or UBB.

Has someone a better idea, or has done something like that before?

Bye
  Marcus
--

-- 
 Das LARP-Portal im Internet:
LARP-Welt: http://larp-welt.de

!fantasy

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David Goodger | 2 Jul 2003 19:09
Favicon

Re: the other way round...

Marcus J. Ertl wrote:
 > Has someone allready tried to transform (simple) html back to reST?

That's a FAQ: question 2.9 of <http://docutils.sf.net/FAQ.html>.
If your work changes the answer, please consider contributing it! :-)

--

-- 
David Goodger    http://starship.python.net/~goodger
For hire: http://starship.python.net/~goodger/cv
Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
(includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html)

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marcelo Huerta | 3 Jul 2003 02:01
Picon

[options] xml_declaration

I'm trying to disable the xml_declaration using a docutils.conf
setting and I'm seemingly unable to. It does work if I use the
--no-xml-declaration switch, but I want to be able to specify this in
the .conf file. I've Used The Source, but I'm at a loss to find why
this particular option doesn't work; I'm unable to find a reason.

Any clues?

(Relevant info about html4css1.py:

# Revision: $Revision: 1.85 $
# Date: $Date: 2003/06/26 16:31:54 $

)

--

-- 
                    o-=< Marcelo >=-o

Lea Axxón: Ciencia ficción en bits. http://axxon.com.ar

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
David Goodger | 3 Jul 2003 03:48
Favicon

Re: [options] xml_declaration

Marcelo Huerta wrote:
 > I'm trying to disable the xml_declaration using a docutils.conf
 > setting and I'm seemingly unable to.

Like this:

     xml_declaration =

Leave the left side blank; empty string is false, but "0" (a
one-character string) is not false.  That should be explained in the
docs at least.  It would be better if "0" was treated as an integer
for boolean settings.  It would reduce confusion; this has come up
before.  I'm not sure how complicated it would be to get ConfigParser
to do the conversion though.

 > It does work if I use the --no-xml-declaration switch, but I want to
 > be able to specify this in the .conf file. I've Used The Source, but
 > I'm at a loss to find why this particular option doesn't work; I'm
 > unable to find a reason.

<http://docutils.sf.net/docs/tools.html#configuration-file-entries>
should have details of all runtime settings.  Currently the LaTeX
settings are in a separate file, but I'd like to merge them when the
config file reorganization is done.

--

-- 
David Goodger    http://starship.python.net/~goodger
For hire: http://starship.python.net/~goodger/cv
Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
(includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Adam Chodorowski | 3 Jul 2003 10:55

Re: [options] xml_declaration

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:48:57 -0400 David Goodger <goodger <at> python.org> wrote:

> Marcelo Huerta wrote:
>  > I'm trying to disable the xml_declaration using a docutils.conf
>  > setting and I'm seemingly unable to.
> 
> Like this:
> 
>      xml_declaration =
> 
> Leave the left side blank; empty string is false, but "0" (a
> one-character string) is not false.  That should be explained in the
> docs at least.  It would be better if "0" was treated as an integer
> for boolean settings.  It would reduce confusion; this has come up
> before.  I'm not sure how complicated it would be to get ConfigParser
> to do the conversion though.

I think it would also be wise to allow "true", "yes", "false" and "no" for
boolean settings, as users are bound to try that...

xml_declaration = no

--

-- 
Adam Chodorowski <adam <at> chodorowski.com>

Don't steal; thou'lt never thus compete successfully in business.  Cheat.
    -- Ambrose Bierce

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
grubert | 4 Jul 2003 01:39
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [Docutils-checkins] docutils/spec notes.txt,1.160,1.161

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, David Goodger wrote:

> Update of /cvsroot/docutils/docutils/spec

> +*  <at>  <at>  <at>  Re-evaluate the config file format, enabling a section for each
> +  Docutils component so that (for example) HTML's and LaTeX's
> +  stylesheets don't interfere with each other.

my silence on your proposal is to be understand as approval.
in fact we must only settle on the configfileformat and how
it should work, implementation can be seen separate and might
be not perfect first time (maybe only writers that need it will
implement it)

>  * The "docutils.conf" included with Docutils should become complete,
> -  with examples of every setting (possibly commented).  It's currently
> -  sparse, requiring doc lookups.
> +  with examples of every setting (many/most commented out).  It's
> +  currently sparse, requiring doc lookups.

i donot think this is feasable or useable. gives a 10kB file. then maybe make
inclusions (in former days it was said a module should be no longer than
one screen, which meant 25 lines)

> +* Rework docs/tools.txt for the new configuration sections.  Merge
> +  doc/latex.txt info into tools.txt.

same as above (but maybe it is just me that does not like to stumble through
tons of pages) make it modules.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
David Goodger | 4 Jul 2003 03:35
Favicon

Re: Re: [Docutils-checkins] docutils/spec notes.txt,1.160,1.161

[David Goodger, in a CVS diff]
 >> * The "docutils.conf" included with Docutils should become complete,
 >>+  with examples of every setting (many/most commented out).  It's
 >>+  currently sparse, requiring doc lookups.

[Engelbert Gruber]
 > i donot think this is feasable or useable.

Perhaps; we'll see.  I'll try it out myself anyhow.

In any case, the default config file should include a reference to the
config file docs.

 >>+* Rework docs/tools.txt for the new configuration sections.  Merge
 >>+  doc/latex.txt info into tools.txt.
 >
 > same as above (but maybe it is just me that does not like to stumble
 > through tons of pages) make it modules.

I disagree here.  Please note, I'm not saying all of docs/latex.txt
should be merged, just the config/settings info.  All settings should
be documented in one place.  docs/tools.txt may be getting too big, in
which case I wouldn't be averse to splitting the config file parts out
into a docs/config.txt file.  The LaTeX stylesheet may require
separate documentation, but not the config file settings.  And at
least a brief summary of rst2latex.py should be part of
docs/tools.txt.

--

-- 
David Goodger    http://starship.python.net/~goodger
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane