> I made this suggestion privately to David, but I'll repeat it here. > I'd be willing to accept that PEPs /may/ be written in reST as an > alternative to plaintext, but not require it. I'd like for PEP > authors to explicitly choose one or the other, preferrably by file > extension (e.g. .txt for plain text .rst or .rest for reST). I'd also > like for there to be two tools for generation derivative forms from > the original source. AFAICT that's all that David asked for. It's the only thing that makes sense; nobody's going to convert over 200 existing PEPs to reST. > I would leave pep2html.py alone. That's the tool that generates .html > from .txt. I'd write a different tool that took a .rst file and > generated both a .html file and a .txt file. The generated .txt file > would have no markup and would conform to .txt PEP style as closely as > possible. reST generated html would then have a link both to the > original reST source, and to the plain text form. I don't see why reST needs to produce .txt output. The reST source is readable enough. > A little competition never hurt anyone. :) So I'd open it up and let > PEP authors decide, and we can do a side-by-side comparison of which > format folks prefer to use. Exactly. Let's do it. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4