Role syntax for option parsing?

[chrisjsewell]

With the standard docutils syntax/parser, there is no way to parse options to role functions :name:`content` . However, in the actual role function signature it does accept an options keyword:

    def __call__(self, role, rawtext, text, lineno, inliner, options={}, content=[]):
        pass

Therefore, it would be conceivable to write myst specific roles that actually did something with these options. No idea what a good syntax would be though.

[choldgraf]

I think it's a feature that'd be really useful to have, but that we should avoid for the time being because if we ever implemented it, then rST documents and MyST documents would have a different feature set from one another. If, eventually, this markup language became popular enough, then it may be worth breaking that strict requirement in order to add new features, but my feeling is we should hold off on this for now. What do you think?

That said, some syntax ides :-)

• `{role}`content [option option key=val key="val w spaces"]`
  

• {role}`content <option option key=val key="val w spaces">` 
  

  this would let us mimic behavior for things like <> syntax as link targets

[chrisjsewell]

we should avoid for the time being

Yeh absolutely. I just put this here for completion