pandoc/TODO

# TODO

*   Use new downloads and wiki features on googlecode?  Perhaps
    some makefile targets can be simplified...

*   state license on first page of website.  also at top of every
    source file... (c) date, and license with link to text.

*   Use XHTML library for HTML writer?  Not yet - it's not standard
    with 6.4.2 (but is with 6.6).  When we can drop support for 
    6.4.2, we can use it.

*   Consider merging changes in pandoc-wrappers (symlinks rather than
    wrapper scripts, except web2markdown and markdown2pdf). 

*   pandoc's HTML output fails to validate completely (w3c).
    There are a few quirks:
    + HTML doesn't like the \> at the end of <meta tags.
      But if we remove them, we'll have trouble with S5 output,
      which seems to need the xhtml header?
    + There's also a problem with the email obfuscation scheme.
      <noscript> isn't allowed inside <p> blocks.  <script> is
      allowed!  Options:
          - come up with another scheme, perhaps more like markdown.pl's
          - ignore the validation problems
          - others?

*   Consider adding support for acronyms.
    Perhaps like this:  [AAAS]
      [AAAS]: "American association for the advancement of science"
    <acronym title="American association for the advancement 
    of science">AAAS</acronym>

*   Consider changing footnote syntax so that all footnotes in markdown
    are embedded (and automatic).^[Like this.  Here's a footnote.  It
    is parsed like a block, so you can have embedded code blocks:

         like this { code }

    ] That was the end of the note.  This means having block elements
    embedded in inline elements, which is possible.
    Advantage:  Much easier to write.  You don't have to pick a label,
    move down to type your note, move back up.
    Disadvantage:  Perhaps slightly harder to read.  (But HTML and LaTeX
    output will still be easy to read.)

    Perhaps a better idea would be to conform to the syntax suggested
    in http://rephrase.net/box/word/footnotes/syntax/#fnref-4
    which seems to have become a de facto standard.  Note that this
    allows inline footnotes, with a slightly uglier syntax - though
    we could introduce ^[blah] as a simplified alternate syntax.
    Note also the implementation changes: auto-numbered footnotes
    in HTML.