[docs] Anchors in Markdown?

jakob · 2016-09-06 00:03:05

Brilliant. It really is a useful resource for following how things work.

hcgtv · 2016-09-06 06:11:40

jakob wrote #301087:

Brilliant. It really is a useful resource for following how things work.

Muchas gracias senor – Textpattern 4.6.0 beta 3ish.

Destry · 2016-09-06 14:45:06

I don’t think the Tag Reference was ever on Textpattern after the wiki. I believe Jakob is right, it went strait to Jekyll pages. That part of the docs — tag pages — is Phil’s baby. I’m only trying to write the other doc pages (e.g. admin-side, etc), most of which are still missing on the new side, and there is no duplication of effort on those, that I’m aware of.

My gripe was having to redo Textile to Markdown for the rather detailed pages I have edited so far. But that’s nobody’s fault. Just typical migration necessity stuff due to platform changes, etc. I’ve not had much time these last months to do anything, but I’d sure rather write/edit words that farc around with formatting syntax. The train will continue to roll along slowly.

hcgtv · 2016-09-06 14:59:43

Destry wrote #301119:

That part of the docs — tag pages — is Phil’s baby.

Well it’s running Textpattern, see the txp:article page.

I just found it really strange, there’s always been a reluctance towards my efforts.

I’ll dig through the sources and update TXP Tags for 4.6.

philwareham · 2016-09-06 15:08:37

It’s Jekyll-powered.

Note that this isn’t a tags site per se – it’s the Textpattern User Documentation site which used to be a Wiki on Textpattern.net. The tags section is just part of that documentation.

I’ve discussed the reasoning behind choosing GitHub’s Jekyll in other threads, but basically it was chosen because the flat files can be collaboratively worked on by GitHub users, and version controlled. It also shares CSS with the upcoming Textpattern.com site and possibly this forum too if I do some work on that soon – which minimises future maintenance.

Destry · 2016-09-06 15:41:03

Destry wrote #301119:

That part of the docs — tag pages — is Phil’s baby.

All I mean by that is it was a division of labor. Phil originally began the docs migration away from the wiki to GitHub, and he sensibly started with the most important part, the Tag Reference. By the time I got involved, the tag pages were mostly done, so I started in with the other sections, and it’s just kind of been that MO ever since. I’d assume once the beast is mostly assembled, there will be more editing across any page by those with write access on the user docs repo. No territorial lines, sensibly.

hcgtv · 2016-09-07 04:57:55

philwareham wrote #301121:

It’s Jekyll-powered.

I say we ditch Textpattern and go with Jekyll ;)

michaelkpate · 2016-09-07 14:10:41

hcgtv wrote #301130:

I say we ditch Textpattern and go with Jekyll ;)

I get the appeal of Jekyll for single-user sites or very technically-inclined multi-users or people desperate for cheap hosting but other than that…

gaekwad · 2016-09-07 14:14:51

michaelkpate wrote #301169:

I get the appeal of Jekyll for single-user sites or very technically-inclined multi-users or people desperate for cheap hosting but other than that…

It plays really well with GitHub, which means a lot of stuff can be collaboratively worked on, with version control.

Oh, and flat files == no inherent CMS to maintain, which is a bonus.

hcgtv · 2016-09-07 14:25:28

gaekwad wrote #301172:

Oh, and flat files == no inherent CMS to maintain, which is a bonus.

DokuWiki is flat file based, there are LibreOffice plugins that can take HTML and convert it to Doku format, it’s how I built up my personal wiki.

Jekyll sounds nice, but you have to learn another markup language, there’s just so much space in my brain, it’s a getting full :)

philwareham · 2016-09-07 15:46:15

Jekyll is the right tool for this (very specific) task. Sure it has some massive limitations you have to consider beforehand but in this case, with its flat file structure that is easily viewed, edited and curated on GitHub, it’s the best choice for our user documentation.

You should probably learn Markdown as it’s fairly ubiquitous on the internet these days. Even though I prefer Textile, I accept that state of affairs.

hcgtv · 2016-09-07 16:01:57

philwareham wrote #301185:

You should probably learn Markdown as it’s fairly ubiquitous on the internet these days. Even though I prefer Textile, I accept that state of affairs.

I successfully avoided ASP, long live PHP.

Let me give you an example of how switching from one to another can be confusing. This forum uses Textile for it’s formatting, over BBCode. Whenever I come here, my mind has to switch, at first it was really hard, I would be creating a post keying in bbcode syntax and then hit preview, shit.

That switching slows you down, I just want to write, and if that markup language is Textile, so be it.

philwareham · 2016-09-07 16:22:49

The Textile option was taken away from us by GitHub. I did have a conversation with the Ben Balter at GitHub who made that decision but their stats for Textile usage were low (50 Textile pages for every 10,000 Markdown pages).

jakob · 2016-09-07 20:11:47

Wet has made a markdown text filter for textpattern, so if you can bulk import the .md files into articles (kind of like rah_flat for articles, you could potentially populate textpattern from the docs on github.

Destry · 2016-09-07 21:02:11

jakob wrote #301209:

if you can bulk import the .md files into articles (kind of like rah_flat for articles), you could potentially populate textpattern from the docs on github.

Are you saying there’s a way to make Textpattern articles into flat files? I.e. I could edit actual articles using iA Writer or Ulysses, for example, just like templates, and never have to open the Write panel of Txp? I didn’t think that was possible.

If articles can be flat files, I might not be opposed to a Txp install for docs to avoid the formatting boogaloo, as long as there was still a GitHub repo to track changes. It seems avoiding the boogaloo dance would be the only advantage, however, since a Jekyll site on GitHub is essentially the same arrangement — a headless, flat-file system.

But if I’m reading that wrong and Txp articles can’t be managed as flat-files, then my feelings on using Txp still stands.

The only thing I really need to make the Textile-to-Markdown editing work less painful in the existing pages (besides any help people want to give), is a table converter, because there are many Textile tables in my doc pages for data scanning reasons, and I have no desire to f-around with that syntax again (it probably won’t even happen, to be honest).

Textpattern CMS support forum

#16 2016-09-06 00:03:05

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

#17 2016-09-06 06:11:40

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

jakob wrote #301087:

#18 2016-09-06 14:45:06

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

#19 2016-09-06 14:59:43

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

Destry wrote #301119:

#20 2016-09-06 15:08:37

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

#21 2016-09-06 15:41:03

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

Destry wrote #301119:

#22 2016-09-07 04:57:55

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

philwareham wrote #301121:

#23 2016-09-07 14:10:41

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

hcgtv wrote #301130:

#24 2016-09-07 14:14:51

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

michaelkpate wrote #301169:

#25 2016-09-07 14:25:28

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

gaekwad wrote #301172:

#26 2016-09-07 15:46:15

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

#27 2016-09-07 16:01:57

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

philwareham wrote #301185:

#28 2016-09-07 16:22:49

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

#29 2016-09-07 20:11:47

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

#30 2016-09-07 21:02:11

Re: [docs] Anchors in Markdown?

jakob wrote #301209:

Board footer