Now, is pier evolving? because i'd also accept a solution where either - pier extends pillar to use @ - pier uses a freezed version of pillar and new releases of pillar are not backward compatible
El dom., 24 de may. de 2015 a la(s) 11:38 a. m., Norbert Hartl < norb...@hartl.name> escribió: > Am 23.05.2015 um 17:59 schrieb Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com>: > > This might be a case where is reasonable for both to be valid: > @ for backward compatibility > # for compatibility with internet conventions > > > Agreed, if there isn't special semantics for @ in pillar then it should be > changed. It is less confusing and less error prone using #. > > Norbert > > cheers -ben > > On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Cyril Ferlicot <cyril.ferli...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi. >> We used '@' because Pier used it this way. I'm afraid that if we >> change the character that will break Pier. >> But if you write *Chapter 1>../Chapter1/chapter1.pillar@cha:chapter1* >> and export in HTML you'll get >> <a href="../Chapter1/chapter1.html#cha:chapter1"> I. Chapter 1 </a> >> >> On 23 May 2015 at 08:44, Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name> wrote: >> > Cyril, >> > >> > Am 22.05.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Cyril Ferlicot <cyril.ferli...@gmail.com >> >: >> > >> > The second main change is the Internal Links. >> > Now when you want to reefer to an anchor, a figure or a script you'll >> > need to use *@anchor* instead of *anchor*. >> > I'm sorry for that but that's the easiest way to implement the >> > inter-files links. >> > >> > >> > why @? It is about links and how to point to a fragment inside a >> resource. >> > This already exists and is called fragment identifier >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragment_identifier >> > >> > You do it by using # the separate the resource and the fragment in an >> URI. >> > >> > '../chapters/chapter1.pillar#section1' >> > >> > is complete valid URI and the way to go. Can you change that? >> > >> > Norbert >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers >> Cyril Ferlicot >> >> > >
