Re: [Boost-docs] Quickbook block element

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Quickbook block element
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-22 08:10:42

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-docs-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-docs-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of
> Joel de Guzman
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 3:38 AM
> To: boost-docs_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Quickbook block element
> 
> On 10/22/2011 2:56 AM, Daniel James wrote:
> > On 21 October 2011 16:52, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> AMDG
> >>
> >> On 10/21/2011 08:40 AM, John Maddock wrote:
> >>>
> >>> How about a "block-template" as well as a "template" ?
> >>>
> >>> I.e. templates are always expanded as phrases, and block-templates
> >>> as blocks?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The current rule is that a block template has a new line after the
> >> argument list.
> >
> > Confusingly, the 'block' element is different from a block template, a
> > block template contains blocks and used to be treated as a phrase
> > element while a 'block' element is contains a phrase but is treated as
> > a block element. So they're sort of the opposite.
> >
> > In quickbook, there are blocks containing blocks (eg. note), blocks
> > containing a phrase (eg. headers), a phrase element containing blocks
> > (footnote) and the normal phrase elements (such as bold). There's also
> > the more complicated elements such as table, sect etc. So when
> > implementing elements as templates, something a bit more sophisticated
> > is needed.
> >
> > I also don't want to have named 'block templates' for a few reasons.
> > As I mentioned above, they're not what you expect block templates to
> > be. I also want this to be usable outside of templates and I think
> > it's a good idea to strongly associate it with its content. Also, I
> > think that if we have alternative targets for quickbook, that'll
> > probably require having different types of templates, so I don't want
> > to get into that area just yet.
> >
> > I thought of calling the element something like 'escapedblock' but
> > that isn't strictly speaking correct, although I'm pretty sure escaped
> > markup is its only use. Maybe it should be an error to use it without
> > escaped markup?
> 
> Nod. This concept of blocks and phrases is all historical. The need arose (IIRC) from constraining
the
> grammar to not allow HTML 'phrase' markups (Qbk started as a tool that generated html) such as
<EM>
> contain 'block' markups such as <P>. I somehow agree with Steven that the distinction is quite
fragile and
> should be reviewed.

As a user, I have never permanently got my head around the difference, and have fallen foul of the
need for a newline.

It seems most undesirable.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]