On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 16:59:04 GMT, Pavel Rappo <pra...@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. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16388#discussion_r1470430534
