Refine terminology

[mojavelinux]

We need to improve the terminology so we're naming things in a way that's both consistent within the grammar and with generally accepted terminology.

For inspiration we should draw on:

• HTML (MDN)
• DocBook
• mdast

Here's a proposal of the names for the inline AST nodes.

• Source
  • The unparsed text that may contain formatting marks and inline elements
• Content or PhrasingContent or Text
  • This represents the parsed text attached to the current node
• Formatted
  • Let's drop the term "quoted" and use the more standard "formatted" to refer to text surrounded in formatting marks
• Strong
• Emphasis
• Code or CodePhrase or InlineCode
• DoubleQuoted or DoubleQuotation
  • We don't need to talk about "curly quotes" since the only relevant quotations in the AST are curly quotations
• SingleQuoted or SingleQuotation
• Mark
• Superscript
• Subscript
• Anchor

[ggrossetie]

Let's drop the term "quoted" and use the more standard "formatted"

💯

Here's a proposal of the names for the inline AST nodes.

Here's an example with this terminology:

Input text is: *a few words*

• Source: *a few words* returned by Strong#source ?
• Text: *a few words* returned by Strong#text
• Formatted: a few words returned by Strong#formatted

[mojavelinux]

Source: *a few words* returned by Strong#source ?

I was just saying that in a general sense, source is what goes in.

Text: *a few words* returned by Strong#text

I'm not exactly sure where "text" will come in. In general, I think it should be avoided. When we go inside a node, we look at the "content". But the existing Inline node uses "text" for this, so we might have to stick with it.

Formatted: a few words returned by Strong#formatted

Formatted is generally what we will call quoted text from AsciiDoc Python. Quoted is a terrible name for this...so we are just looking to improve it. Technically, it would be "marked up" text, but I think "formatted" is easier to talk about.