On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:14 AM Raniere Silva <[email protected]> wrote: ...
> 6. The workflow for creating and publishing lessons > should be authentic, i.e., the way people write and > publish lessons should be a way they might use to > write and publish research papers. > > I want to have real data for this but I don't have. > I'm not sure if this qualifies as real data or not - it's not a research paper - but I recently re-mixed the present pandoc workflow, the hg-novice lesson content, and SWC layout to produce a full-day version control workshop for the Canadian MEOPAR Network of Centres of Excellence (meopar.ca). Content is at <http://douglatornell.ca/training/meopeers-2015-06-15/> and repo is at <https://bitbucket.org/43ravens/meopeers-2015-06-15>. I would still have re-mixed the lesson content, but I doubt that I would have used the workflow if it had been jeykll/kramdown/gh-pages, and having to create a different workflow would have cost me a bunch more time. I see value in the more generic pandoc workflow. > What I know is that > (1) RStudio users have Pandoc off-the-shelf, > and are using it, > (2) IPython/Jupyter Notebook users are using Jinja2 > that is something that we will not considere using, > and (3) despite many people hate DOCX and ODT > many publishers still require it, > Pandoc can convert Markdown to DOCX/ODT > but Kramdown can't. > > Trying to be rational here, > Pandoc only loses in the GitHub Pages magic > so we should stay it it and replace GitHub Pages > for the lessons with another solution. > > If people really want to back to Jekyll > just because of GitHub I'm OK with it. > > Cheers, > Raniere > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
