docs: [RFC] Configuring File Name from Block Meta #230
Conversation
|
Hi @JoshuaKGoldberg!, thanks for the Pull Request The pull request title isn't properly formatted. We ask that you update the pull request title to match this format, as we use it to generate changelogs and automate releases.
To Fix: You can fix this problem by clicking 'Edit' next to the pull request title at the top of this page. Read more about contributing to ESLint here |
| It only specifies syntax like <code>\`\`\`jsx live style={{border: '1px solid red'}}</code> | ||
|
|
||
| This RFC chooses `title` over alternatives such as `filename`. | ||
| `title` appears to be the closest to a "popular" choice in existing projects today. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cc @Josh-Cena from #208 - this looks like something you might have context / opinions on? 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mmm, I don't know much outside of Docusaurus/MDN markdown, and the two projects have exactly disjoint sets of meta attributes...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like most of the linked examples actually use filename. Which ones use title?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Docusaurus does.
I'll also note that I've since learned about Expressive Code through Astro Starlight. It uses title as a manual prop name: https://expressive-code.com/key-features/code-component/#title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Given that, I don't think using title is a good idea. filename seems like a safer choice. We could also do eslint-filename as a completely safe choice, assuming no Markdown parser will balk at unknown attributes.
(We could also use filename unless eslint-filename is present.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't follow. Docusaurus is by far the most popular solution out of these. Is there a reason you're not fond of title for safety?
Personally, I actually do think filename makes more sense as a technical descriptor. "Title" to me reads as a display title, which isn't always the same as the file name. So I suppose I'm asking more out of thoroughness, not disagreement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Docusaurus is just one use case for Markdown, producing online documentation, but that's not the only use case. I use Markdown to write books and blog posts, and I often feed that Markdown into different tools (including this one).
So, I'm looking at this from a general "what would most people writing Markdown expect?" perspective. This plugin needs to consider the whole universe of Markdown use cases.
JoshuaKGoldberg
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for putting this together, and sorry for the delay (as I mentioned, v9 swallowed a lot of time).
This looks like a rational proposal to me. Only outstanding question I have is about title vs. filename (see inline). I suppose another option would be to support both? (and if both are present, just take the first one?)
| It only specifies syntax like <code>\`\`\`jsx live style={{border: '1px solid red'}}</code> | ||
|
|
||
| This RFC chooses `title` over alternatives such as `filename`. | ||
| `title` appears to be the closest to a "popular" choice in existing projects today. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like most of the linked examples actually use filename. Which ones use title?
|
I asked Docusaurus about the decision to use |
Per #226 (comment), this is a mini-RFC based on roughly half of the design format from https://github.com/eslint/rfcs. Sending as a PR so we can make comment threads per-line and see a commit history.