@@ -1,27 +1,17 @@
3−* Use XHTML library for HTML writer?
3+* Use new downloads and wiki features on googlecode? Perhaps
4+ some makefile targets can be simplified...
5−* Revisions for building with windows under cygwin:
6+* state license on first page of website. also at top of every
6− Cabal under windows produces 'pandoc.exe', and some of the scripts
7+ source file... (c) date, and license with link to text.
7− expect 'pandoc'. (See if this has now been fixed by Makefile change.)
9−* Windows binary distribution: pandoc.exe. Work this into the website
9+* Use XHTML library for HTML writer? Not yet - it's not standard
10− target.
10+ with 6.4.2 (but is with 6.6). When we can drop support for
11−
11+ 6.4.2, we can use it.
12−* Consider allowing 'a.', 'b.', etc. to mark ordered lists. Perhaps
13− also '(a)', '(1)', 'a)', '1)', etc., as in rst. This does depart from
16−* Consider making section headers block titles rather than blocks.
17− Instead of: [Header 1 "My title", Block1, Block2, Block3],
18− Section "My title" [Block1, Block2, Block3].
19− This seems cleaner and would facilitate a docbook writer.
20− It might also simplify the rst reader.
22* Consider merging changes in pandoc-wrappers (symlinks rather than
13* Consider merging changes in pandoc-wrappers (symlinks rather than
23− wrapper scripts, except web2markdown and markdown2pdf). This also
14+ wrapper scripts, except web2markdown and markdown2pdf).
26* pandoc's HTML output fails to validate completely (w3c).
16* pandoc's HTML output fails to validate completely (w3c).
27 There are a few quirks:
17 There are a few quirks:
@@ -54,3 +44,11 @@
54 Disadvantage: Perhaps slightly harder to read. (But HTML and LaTeX
44 Disadvantage: Perhaps slightly harder to read. (But HTML and LaTeX
55 output will still be easy to read.)
45 output will still be easy to read.)
47+ Perhaps a better idea would be to conform to the syntax suggested
48+ in http://rephrase.net/box/word/footnotes/syntax/#fnref-4
49+ which seems to have become a de facto standard. Note that this
50+ allows inline footnotes, with a slightly uglier syntax - though
51+ we could introduce ^[blah] as a simplified alternate syntax.
52+ Note also the implementation changes: auto-numbered footnotes