Re: Name of "simple text"

[Patrice Dumas]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 08:33:06PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:52:33AM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > Even the recent one?  I started having more categories in command_data.txt
> > both for the inner commands classes (in_heading_spec) and outer commands 
> > classes
> > (contain_simple_text, contain_plain_text), maybe simply adding more
> > classes/flags would be enough to have a clear code.  The issue is that
> > the number of flags is constrained for the XS parser.
> 
> I actually find it hard to remember the difference between "simple text"
> and "plain text".  If I understand correctly "simple text" includes
> everything that would occur inside a single paragraph, with some exceptions
> like cross-references and anchors.
> 
> This includes markup commands (like @emph and @code) as well as glyph
> (@AA) and accent (@ogonek) commands.

Indeed. glyph and accent commands also appear in "plain text", but not
markup commands.

> It's an important subset of Texinfo content but I don't like describing it
> as "text".  Can we find a better name for it?

Most likely, I am not a native english speaker and always struggle with
(short) names.

> "Simple content" seems like an immediate improvement.  "Basic
> paragraphal content" is too long.  "Simple inline content" might be ok
> (where "inline" has the same meaning as HTML).  "Horizontal content"
> is an alternative.

Inline is used, indeed, for @inline* commands in that sense and in other
parts of the code.  "Simple inline content" and "Plain inline content"
then?  An issue with content is that it is already used for table of
contents, and also for the 'contents' in the Texinfo tree.  But it is
not that problematic, text is also used for different things.

-- 
Pat