It was my impression that rst supported Unicode; can you just type in the raw character and let docutils handle encoding for HTML?
Hank Gay
2009-12-07 19:55:08
+1
A:
hmm... I guess I could, but I'd rather stick to ASCII.
Jason S
2009-12-07 19:56:35
+1
A:
You have a large number of defined symbols via the "substitution" operator.
You have to include the definitions via .. include:: <isonum.txt> or something similar.
Most of them have the form |larr| or |rarr|.
They are defined in the docutils.parsers.rst.include installation directory. There are dozens of files which define numerous Unicode characters.
S.Lott
2009-12-07 20:11:04
Hmmm. These look really lousy compared to the Markdown symbols that result.
Jason S
2009-12-07 20:15:24
"lousy"? What does that mean in this context? Are you saying that `←` is worse than `|larr|` or are you saying that your browser font looks lousy?
S.Lott
2009-12-07 21:06:58
I'm looking at this `→` on this site, and comparing it against Sphinx (using RST) HTML output of |rarr|. Both are HTML and are using the same default font. I'm not sure if they are the same unicode character, I don't have a character-codepoint-decoder on hand.
Jason S
2009-12-07 21:41:36
You don't need much of a code-point decoder. The standard HTML entities give you the Unicode character number. The `<isonum.txt>` file gives you the character defined by RST. You can create your own definition if the HTML entity is different than the RST entity.
S.Lott
2009-12-08 00:35:17
Hmm. Both sources claim codepoint 0x2192 for rarr, and the surrounding text is in the same font, yet the symbols look different. Something is fishy, and like I said, I don't have a character codepoint decoder.
Jason S
2009-12-08 14:45:21
Argh -- a red herring, it has something to do with the CSS or font displays, nothing to do with UTF-8 encoding vs. HTML entity encoding. Thanks!
Jason S
2009-12-08 15:14:28