Mine fails if we would allow the {} stuff to spread over multiple lines (as I proposed in the attributes thread…)
Well, now that I’ve been practising typing the {} syntax (via examples above). I’m incline to agree with vitaly that param should be more flexible. Since the {} is not very friendly for touch typing, and is only used in inline typing as a necessity.
Plus mine is still in keeping with the consistent attribute syntax. Since I recognize that a block can be styled via {} at the end, or at the fence start. I intentionally allowed two formats, because for short settings, the compact block directive is more intuitive. While for larger directive with more complex params, it should really be in it’s own line for legibility.
I encourage you to type typing my two forms and your form. You’ll see the difference I noticed.
Yours doesn’t have a way to specify InlineContent, i.e. the in my proposal.
Well that’s because I don’t think it comes under the jurisdiction of generic block directives. I have no issue with your inlinecontent proposal, but’s not a generic directive. It’s more related to the family of [](){}, though I do not have a name for it.
I’m okay with it.
blababba [ inline content ]{.style} blabalba
I think it comes under Content Block/Inline Syntax
(tl;dr: I support it, but think it needs to be in a different category. Not a directive.)
(Oh and btw, this is a block directive thread. So limited scope of discussion here)