Grafoscopio can display markdown files ? On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 5:38 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas < [email protected]> wrote:
> Dimitris, > > I understand your practical reasons to have Markdown over Pillar and in > fact I have advocated several of them. As I have said, Markdown ubiquity > for complete documentation workflows (including complete books) is similar > to git ubiquity for code. Despite having other personal preferences in > markup and DVCS, I think is strategic to give them support in Pharo, > without precluding any work on our own tools (Monticello, Metacello, > Pillar, etc.). > > I'll try to make some experiments with integration of Documenter in > Grafoscopio and Markdown. They'll advance slowly, because time constrains > now that I'm trying to finish my thesis, but once a week I'll try to show > advancements and make questions. > > Cheers, > > Offray > > On 26/08/17 01:55, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: > > As I said the format is not so important for me, the reason why I chose > markdown instead of pillar is because you can edit it using github web > interface making it easier. The books will continue to use Pillar, because > making a book is obviously a lot more sophisticated than creating a wiki > that mainly has web links to various internet locations. Pillar already can > export to markdown , latex, html and through latex it can also export to > pdf. > > After Stef requested it, I moved the wiki inside the pharo git repository > here > > https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo > > I also added a link to it inside the git wiki of pharo > > https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/wiki > > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 2:17 AM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> So, we're going to have Markdown for the wiki and probably for >> documentation (via GitBooks)..., which is not surprising considering the >> vast amount of support such documentation format has and the extensions for >> a complete documentation toolchain and features. As I said, I think that is >> an important syntax and we should put Scholarly/Pandoc Markdown in the >> radar for documentation support in Pharo. Is what I'm doing with >> Grafoscopio and now that Pillar support is again taking momentum, the >> infrastructure there (parsers, highlighters, editors) could be extended to >> support Pandoc's Markdown. >> >> I'll keep you posted. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Offray >> >> On 24/08/17 17:59, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:32 PM Stephane Ducasse < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> You have Netstyle/Workflow too. >>> >> >> done >> >> "Why are you using markup documents to create the wiki when you could >> use Github wiki itself? >> >> For portability?" >> >> good question. Yes for flexibility , another reason however is that >> Github wiki is a separate repo and I did not want that because in the very >> back of my head I am considering the option of creating software to allow >> access to wiki from inside Pharo and I wanted to be all (content and code) >> in the same repo. Its a very low priority for now. >> >> Also Github wiki is basically the same as I am doing with some extra >> format (table of contents) , in my case I dont care because Github allows >> me to define HTML templates that will format the wiki webpage and make it >> look a a lot more polished that pharo wiki looks like. Generally there are >> some cool stuff you can do with Markdown and Github , plus the fact that >> markdown can embed HTML etc. >> >> There is also the option of Gitbook which has some nice features for >> generating polished and well structured documentation. >> >> So I like to keep my options open. For now I am focusing 100% on content. >> >> >> >
