Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add ids to definitions for linking #7

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Add ids to definitions for linking #7

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

JimPatterson
Copy link

We use the deflist to create a glossary and need to link to specific definitions.

I ran unittest and they fail on the branch upstream master branch. I did not attempt to correct that, but I did fix the tests relative to these changes so they don't fail any more than they did.

@JimPatterson
Copy link
Author

The travis test fails due to trying to use a really old version of node that is not compatible with the current versions of the tools. Do we need to stay with such an old version of node?

@puzrin
Copy link
Member

puzrin commented Jun 11, 2020

@JimPatterson thanks for suggestion. I'm very conservative about adding new options, because this process is endless and very opinion-based. So, default answer is "no to everything if possible". In details - i check first, if the same effect can be acheived without upstream change.

Also note, in your current solution it's very easy to create conflicting ids, if user uses deflist twice (or create quote of deflist on the same webpage).

IMO, in this case, you could get the same result via customized renderer methods, without dependency on my personal opinion.

BUT... if you have explanation why all dt MUST have id, i'm ready to learn.

To be honest, similar issues about head ancors stays unresolved for a long time markdown-it/markdown-it#28, and i doubt we can find good deflist-specific solution in reasonable time.

The travis test fails due to trying to use a really old version of node that is not compatible with the current versions of the tools. Do we need to stay with such an old version of node?

It breaks due unpinned dependency versions, i'll fix both a bit later, don't worry about travis status.

@JimPatterson
Copy link
Author

@puzrin I'm okay with rejecting this, I'll use the other interface for my projects needs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants