You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've just started using mdBook and have added mdBook-admonish. The look is great.
I am slightly concerned for the future when it comes to publishing my book in formats other than HTML. It looks like the mdBook renderers for PDF and EPUB are a long way from finished. So I was wondering about using PanDoc for more mature pdf and epub support.
However, I think I will need to get PanDoc to interpret my mdBook files as if they are GitHub flavoured Markdown as it doesn't support mdBook at present. GitHub seems to have standardised on
> **Note**
> This is a note
> **Warning**
> This is a warning
although that seems contentious. I see that CommonMark is also having discussions about what format to use and I see that this is also suggested as a "better" solution:
:::note
This is a note
:::
:::warning
This is a warning
:::
While Microsoft are apparently using
> [!NOTE]
> Information the user should notice even if skimming.
> [!TIP]
> Optional information to help a user be more successful.
> [!IMPORTANT]
> Essential information required for user success.
> [!CAUTION]
> Negative potential consequences of an action.
> [!WARNING]
> Dangerous certain consequences of an action.
So the route of dBook-admonish of
```admonish quote
test quote
```
is unusual. Do you have any thoughts about supporting GitHub format or whatever Commonmark eventually decide on?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hey, thanks for the suggestion/question. This crate currently uses pulldown-cmark for markdown parsing; so I would be very happy to support any syntax that's natively supported there (from the sound of it, this ::: syntax may be supported in the future?).
For now, supporting GitHub-flavor syntax seems doable, as it's just a combination of existing markdown syntax. However, this will be a subset of current functionality (can't handle e.g. custom titles).
It should also probably be opt-in with a new config option, we can remove this later if we think most users will want it.
If you'd like to work on a PR for supporting GitHub flavour markdown, I'm happy to review it. I may eventually implement it myself if not, but currently spare-time-coding is quite far down my list of things to do!
Hi,
I've just started using mdBook and have added mdBook-admonish. The look is great.
I am slightly concerned for the future when it comes to publishing my book in formats other than HTML. It looks like the mdBook renderers for PDF and EPUB are a long way from finished. So I was wondering about using PanDoc for more mature pdf and epub support.
However, I think I will need to get PanDoc to interpret my mdBook files as if they are GitHub flavoured Markdown as it doesn't support mdBook at present. GitHub seems to have standardised on
although that seems contentious. I see that CommonMark is also having discussions about what format to use and I see that this is also suggested as a "better" solution:
While Microsoft are apparently using
So the route of dBook-admonish of
is unusual. Do you have any thoughts about supporting GitHub format or whatever Commonmark eventually decide on?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: