On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:47:33 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > Musing on this more. > > Can/should we, without introducing probably unwelcome `Kind.MD` to > > `javax.tools.JavaFileObject.Kind`, teach javac to recognise `package.md` > > similarly to how it recognises legacy `package.html`? If we are aiming for > > Markdown to be a drop in replacement for traditional javadoc comments, we > > might want to go the extra mile. > > I'm pleased to see that Markdown `-overview` files work just fine. > > No. There are times to let go of legacy behavior, and even if this is not the > time to remove support for `package.html`, there is no reason to go backwards > and support `package.md`. The preferred replacement for `package.html` has > long been `package-info.java` and you can put Markdown content in that file > with no issues. > > In similar fashion, remember the recent discussion as to whether we should > support `@deprecated` in Markdown comments as marking the declaration as > _deprecated_, even without the `@Deprecated` annotation. The general > consensus was to not persist with that legacy behavior. Okay. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16388#discussion_r1484693923
