[Pmwiki-users] Re: Re: include part of a page syntax, revisited
Patrick R. Michaud
Wed Jun 16 15:55:31 CDT 2004
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 10:09:27PM +0200, Christian Ridderstr?m wrote:
> Btw, you don't think people might be
> confused into thinking that in
> the '123' is an anchor? (Assuming that is a valid example though)
Assuming you meant [[include:PageName#from#123]], then yes, someone
can easily be confused into thinking that "123" is an anchor. But by
the HTML specs it's not a valid anchor, so the alternative is to
come up with something totally different to represent line numbers
within a page. For me it was just a convenient (and experimental)
notation--I don't have any problem with eliminating the #nnn
interpretation as long as there is at least one good alternative
syntax for extracting 'n' lines from another page.
> > So far my reading of comments from others, as well as my own experience,
> > is that 'SomePage#from' implies including a section (up to the next
> > anchor) more than it does a paragraph. This is likely because the
> > markup naturally references anchors (#), not paragraphs.
> Could you point me to an example of where it's used? (I've never seen the
> need for using it like that).
Well, I can't find an example of where it's ->used<- because this meaning
hasn't been implemented yet. But several have asked for some ability
to include everything up to the "next" anchor -- see
although the syntax for this has varied between "SomePage#anchor" and
"SomePage#anchor#", generally with the other one being used to mean
"from #anchor to the end of the page". I personally don't have a
strong preference which way it goes, although it does seem clear to
me that perhaps one of these ought to mean "up to the next anchor" and the
other "from the anchor to the end of the page".
More information about the pmwiki-users