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 > <offray.l...@mutabit.com <mailto:offray.l...@mutabit.com>> 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 >> <stepharo.s...@gmail.com <mailto:stepharo.s...@gmail.com>> 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. >
