new format for specifying list classes?

Jason Garber jg at
Thu Mar 5 09:47:48 EST 2009

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  

Here's what PyTextile does:
> To style a list, the parameters should go before the hash if you  
> want to set the attributes on the <ol> tag:
> (class#id)# one
> # two
> # three
> If you want to customize the firsr <li> tag, apply the parameters  
> after the hash:
> #(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. :-)


More information about the Redcloth-upwards mailing list