[gnome-doc-utils/mallard: 60/87] Adding some processing expectations for code blocks
- From: Shaun McCance <shaunm src gnome org>
- To: svn-commits-list gnome org
- Subject: [gnome-doc-utils/mallard: 60/87] Adding some processing expectations for code blocks
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
commit 5fbd1ffe415442a03f784c44bb7cb9dabf98ad31
Author: Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>
Date: Tue Dec 2 09:17:52 2008 -0600
Adding some processing expectations for code blocks
---
doc/mallard/C/mal_block_code.xml | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/mallard/C/mal_block_code.xml b/doc/mallard/C/mal_block_code.xml
index 724b7e2..097e362 100644
--- a/doc/mallard/C/mal_block_code.xml
+++ b/doc/mallard/C/mal_block_code.xml
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@ mal_block_code = element code {
attribute * - (mal:* | local:*) { text } *,
<link xref="mal_inline">mal_inline</link>
-}</code></synopsis>
+}
+</code></synopsis>
<comment>
<cite date="2006-12-08"><name>Shaun McCance</name></cite>
@@ -54,6 +55,27 @@ mal_block_code = element code {
<p>Add processing expectations. For block, strip leading/trailing
newline. Do not strip leading indentation.</p>
</comment>
+ <p>Processing tools should strip a leading newline and a trailing newline
+ from the text content. This allows people to write XML like the following:</p>
+ <code>
+<code>
+def frobnicate (foo, bar):
+ if foo:
+ bar
+ else:
+ foo + bar
+</code>
+</code>
+ <p>This is much more natural to read and write, since every line is on its
+ own without markup. Processing tools should strip no more than one newline
+ from either end, in case authors need to insert intentional newlines. If
+ the first or last child is an element, processing tools should not descend
+ into those elements to strip newlines.</p>
+ <p>Processing tools should not attempt to strip uniform indentation from
+ the text contents. Authors sometimes indent preformatted text to match
+ the indentation of the surrounding markup. Handling this reliably is
+ difficult and can lead to unexpected results. Authors should fix their
+ documents if this problem arises.</p>
</section>
<!-- END processing -->
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]