This is in our plan. Have a look at Ecstatic because I want to be able to - use plain pillar - generate plain HTML
There is also a little web server to display your ecstatic web site. All this is rudimentary. We use mustache for the templating. Stef On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote: > Hi Stef - I think your’s is a fair requirement (in fact I hit something > similar when doing a static website using a JS markdown framework - and this > is why I mentioned Kramdown which adds a few extras to regular markdown - but > it feels like it goes a bit too far). > > My next item on my learning todo list was to try and replace that JS > generator with something from Smalltalk - so I think we can possibly come up > with something that ticks all the right boxes (I’d like to try anyway). > > I’ll keep working away on it and compare notes with you. I think with Pillar, > it was more that things like headers, bold and italics are similar concepts > but just use different characters - so I keep typing the wrong thing and > getting frustrated particularly when we embrace Git and readme.md is in > markdown. > > > Tim > >> On 13 Aug 2017, at 20:08, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi tim >> >> I personally do not care much about the syntax but I care about what I >> can do with it >> (ref, cite, ... ) >> I cannot write books in markdown because reference to figures!!!!!! >> were missing. >> >> And of course a parser because markdown is not really nice to parse >> and I will not write a parser because I have something else to do. I >> want to make pillar smaller, simpler, nicer. >> >> Now if someone come up with a parser that parse for REAL a markdown >> that can be extended with decent behavior (figure reference, section >> reference, cite) and can be extended because there are many things >> that can be nice to have (for example I want to be able to write the >> example below) and emit a PillarModel (AST) we can talk to have >> another syntax for Pillar but not before. >> >> [[[test >> 2+3 >>>>> 5 >> ]]] >> >> and being able to verify that the doc is in sync. >> >> >> Stef >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote: >>> Of course, I/we recognise and appreciate all the work that's gone into docs >>> in pillar - but I think it should be reasonably straightforward to write a >>> converter as it is pretty closely related from what I have seen. >>> >>> So I don't make the suggestion flippantly, and would want to help write a >>> converter and get us to a common ground where we can differentiate on the >>> aspects where we can excel. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 23:21, Peter Uhnak <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> A long time issue with Markdown was that there was no standardization (and >>>> when I used Pillar's MD export ~2 years ago it didn't work well). >>>> >>>> However CommonMark ( http://spec.commonmark.org/0.28/ ) has become the >>>> de-facto standard, so it would make sense to support it bidirectionally >>>> with Pillar. >>>> >>>>> The readme.md that Peter is talking about is gfm markdown >>>> >>>> Well, technically it is just a CommonMark, as I am not using any github >>>> extensions. >>>> (Github uses CommonMarks and adds just couple small extensions.) >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
