replace kramdown with GFM #210
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
swantzter
added
Area: Jekyll
benharri
approved these changes
Feb 14, 2022
Member
Author
|
Currently breaking the {:toc} macro on the FAQ page. This is bad and needs to be solved |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This swaps out the default kramdown renderer in Jekyll for GitHub pages' GFM renderer
There are pros and cons of this, the main benefits include that if it renders on GH when looking at a PR or commit, it will render the same on the site once it's deployed (something I noticed in the 2022-01 minutes where the code blocks in
<details>rendered in GH, and to my knowledge would render as expected in jekyll, and then didn't)Most downsides I'm aware of are covered by the code changes in this PR:
{::nomarkdown}to get around it)