On 2010-04-07, g.bra...@gmx.net wrote: > Guenter Milde <mi...@users.berlios.de> wrote: >> On 2010-04-07, Kevin Horn wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Guenter Milde
>> >> Sphinx does not depend on Docutils but forked from it. > Günter, I'm surprised that you're making such uninformed statements. I have to realize that I did only look at the surface with Sphinx adding many elements to the rst syntax, sometimes even incompatible (the .. class:: directive) and with code duplication (I have to admit that I only looked at my special field, the LaTeX writer). > Sphinx is not intended as a replacement for docutils, and it does not > try to make docutils obsolete. You should know that by now. I accnowledge this with pleasure. I hope that there will remain a "peacefull coexistence" of these tools, developing into a closer co-operation or at least coordination. > Otherwise, don't you think I wouldn't have bothered porting docutils to > Python 3 I assumed this was just to give Sphinx a clean start, > or contributing back speedup patches? while this should have me told otherwise. ... > Correct. Sphinx builds upon docutils, and uses as much of docutils as > possible, with the LaTeX writer being the only exception ... Does this mean that I can, e.g. use SVG and SWF vector images in HTML after installing the Docutils development version without change to Sphinx? This would be good news indeed. Thanks for your clarification, Günter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sphinx-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to sphinx-...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sphinx-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sphinx-dev?hl=en.
