[Zope3-dev] FWIW: I endorse reStructuredText

[Tres Seaver]

On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 12:11, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "MM" == Mark McEahern <marklists@mceahern.com> writes:
> 
>     MM> As Barry pointed out, David Goodger prefers .txt.  One
>     MM> advantage to using something else (e.g., '.rst') is you can
>     MM> then make emacs open these files with a specific mode.  Of
>     MM> course, as of now, there's probably no reStructuredText
>     MM> specific mode.  But there probably one day will be.  <wink>
> 
> That might be useful, but there are other ways to add metadata to the
> file to get Emacs to DTRT (e.g. -*- mode -*- lines or local
> variables).

Are you endorsing adding such markup to each file for each-and-every
editor out there?  Or had you just forgotten that there are other
choices :)?

 -*- reSTX -*-
 vim: let b:current_syntax reSTX
 joe: set syntax reSTX (whatever joe would use)

Filename extensions suck, but they beat having to mangle the file
contents FBO your editor.  (And don't even start about the Emacs local
variable thing, which has an abominable syntax.)

David's position is like one which insists on using '.xml' as the suffix
for each-and-every file which uses XML markup to encode its data:  while
it may be *true*, it isn't *useful*, to say that the file is XML.  The
case of resources served over the web is worse: some people have to use
tools (like IE, for instance), which ignore extra metadata like the
'Content-type' header of an HTTP request, and just hand the file off to
the Windows shell module to invoke its filename-extension-only braindead
handler.

+1 for '.rst'.

Tres.
-- 
===============================================================
Tres Seaver                                tseaver@zope.com
Zope Corporation      "Zope Dealers"       http://www.zope.com