Hi, RedCloth folks. The other day, I tried this: > *(class-one) one > *(class-two) two > *(class-three) three thinking I'd get this: > <ul> > <li class="class-one">one</li> > <li class="class-two">two</li> > <li class="class-three">three</li> > </ul> But that's not how it works. RedCloth 3 & 4 and Textile 2 both make the class/id you put on the first item in the list the class/id for the whole list. When you put classes/ids on subsequent list items, RedCloth 3 blows up, Textile2 makes them completely separate lists, and RedCloth 4 puts classes on the wrong list items (I'm fixing that now). Here's what PyTextile does: > # two > # three What do you think? Stick close to Textile 2 or go the PyTetxile way to expand Textile's breadth of expression? It will break backward compatibility but I really want this feature. :-) Jason
on 2009-03-05 16:21
on 2009-03-05 21:13
Funny, i was just trying to do this myself last week, and saw the same issue. I made it work (putting the class on the ul element), but it felt dirty. I just had the feeling it shouldn't work like that. almost resorted to html. (!) This is a tough call... My vote: onward an upward! Make it work like it should have all along. If they're savvy enough to be adding classes to list elements in textile, they're savvy enough to figure out how to fix their old (kind of hacky) markup. david
on 2009-03-06 08:15
Hello, >> >> #(class#id) one >> # two >> # three > > What do you think? Stick close to Textile 2 or go the PyTetxile way to > expand Textile's breadth of expression? It will break backward > compatibility but I really want this feature. :-) I support/prefer the PyTextile way. Using the new semantics is a great addition to mark steps/incrementals in presentations e.g. (step)# one # two # three Let's you mark all list items at once. #one #(step) two #(step) three Let's you mark individual items. I tried it before with the "old" version of RedCloth/Textile but it was not possible . Cheers.  http://groups.google.com/group/webslideshow/msg/a0...