On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:24:57PM -0400, Max Battcher wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Trent W. Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Max Battcher <[email protected]> writes:
> >> If we want a "standard" to propose to John for Pandoc's reST Syntax
> >> Highlighting support, the best bet is probably Sphinx's directives
> >> (highlight and code-block and literalinclude:
> >> http://sphinx.pocoo.org/markup/code.html).
> >
> > I haven't looked lately. Max, can you confirm that Sphinx and Trac both
> > use the same source format for typed literal blocks? If both use the
> > same thing, then I'm all for it.
>
> To be honest, Trac's reST support has always seemed to me like an
> awkward step-child... I'm not sure that I would use it as a guide for
> standardization, but I went and double-checked on it for you.
Nod. My theory was that if at least TWO popular implementations are
using the same setup, we can call it a "de facto standard extension"
and happily advocate it.
> It appears that Trac does call its directive "code-block" as well, but
> does not support the additionally quite useful highlight and
> literalinclude directives, so Trac can be considered a subset of the
How does literalinclude relate to the standard
.. include:: foo.bar
:literal: true
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
