Re: [proof of concept] inline language blocks

[Juan Manuel Macías]

Ihor Radchenko writes:

> Juan Manuel Macías <maciaschain@posteo.net> writes:
>
>>> We need to finalize inline special block syntax first, and then talk
>>> about special cases like inline language markup you propose.
>>
>> As I already said, in my local branch I have both elements created,
>> based on the same syntax:
>>
>> - language block: :lang{text}
>>
>> - special block &type{text}
>>
>> the latter would be exported, for example, to html as <span 
>> class="type">text</span> or to LaTeX as \type{text}
>>
>> I like the syntax because it is minimalist and not verbose at all. That
>> could serve as a basis (at least it is good to have a starting point,
>> because otherwise everything will be diluted in discussions). Then we
>> can start thinking about whether to add options and how to add them.
>
> We do not need to design the inline special block markup fully to
> introduce it. However, we do need to make sure that whatever simple
> version of inline markup we introduce does not prevent further planned
> extensions.

My proposed syntax could be:

&type[options]{content}

> My main concern is the possibility to introduce multi-argument markup.
> Like @abbrev{EA}{example abbreviation}. This will be necessary to
> achieve parity with Texinfo markup.
> However, it is not yet clear about the best syntax to pass multiple
> arguments.

I imagine multiple arguments would depend on each backend, right?
Because I don't quite see much sense in html, for example. However, it
occurs to me to reuse content, and add some separator character:

&type[options]{arg1::arg2::etc}

or better:

&type[options and aditional args]{content}

to maintain a certain parallelism with the large blocks.

-- 
Juan Manuel Macías -- Composición tipográfica, tratamiento de datos, diseño 
editorial y ortotipografía