| 13 Jul 2021 |
 Jan Tojnar | if we carry over as much as possible, we can then decide we do not want to have manpage links | 00:43:02 |
| Jan Tojnar | but if we drop them in conversion, it will be PITA to add them back | 00:43:23 |
| Jan Tojnar | eventually, I want to make a RFC evaluating each feature individually, based on different criteria | 00:46:55 |
| Jan Tojnar | but until then, I want to preserve everything that is reasonably simple to preserve | 00:47:38 |
 ryantm | Sounds good. | 00:55:03 |
| Jan Tojnar | ryantm: I want to recommend the db-to-md script from the PR instead of manual pandoc+prettier invocation | 00:58:31 |
| Jan Tojnar | now that we convinced pandoc to use fenced code blocks, we should not even need prettier | 00:59:34 |
| ryantm | Maybe we could avoid "footnote" link magic, but aggregating the "footnote" links across the whole set of documents. | 01:00:16 |
| ryantm | By "footnote" link, I mean the [link][1] ones | 01:00:36 |
| Jan Tojnar | so not actual footnotes [link][^1]? | 01:01:41 |
| ryantm | Oh, that's a thing in some extension? | 01:02:33 |
| Jan Tojnar | In reply to @ryantm:matrix.org
Maybe we could avoid "footnote" link magic, but aggregating the "footnote" links across the whole set of documents. that would be pretty simple by concating the link target definitions to each md file | 01:03:06 |
| Jan Tojnar | extras would just be ignored | 01:03:16 |
| Jan Tojnar | In reply to @ryantm:matrix.org
Oh, that's a thing in some extension? yeah, pandoc supports it | 01:03:25 |
| ryantm | I just meant the one like this:
[Link][1]
⋮
[1]: http://b.org
| 01:03:37 |
| Jan Tojnar | you can even use strings instead of numbers | 01:03:49 |
| ryantm | Right. | 01:03:57 |
| ryantm | So there could be ones for all the NixOS options, and all the common manpages. | 01:04:24 |
| ryantm | Though I guess NixOS options might be xrefs? | 01:04:48 |
| Jan Tojnar | yeah, xref work for options for now | 01:05:35 |
| Jan Tojnar | I think I still like {manpage}`foo(5)` more compared to something like [][foo(5)], which would still need us to fill in the link text | 01:07:53 |
| Jan Tojnar | so we would need some way to annotate the anchors that they are manpages | 01:08:34 |
| Jan Tojnar | Or write [`foo(5)`][foo(5)] which is IMO even worse for writers than the MyST role. | 01:10:05 |
| Jan Tojnar | Something like [](man:foo(5) would bring best of both worlds, I feel, but it is non-standard. | 01:12:34 |
| Jan Tojnar | * Something like [](man:foo(5)) would bring best of both worlds, I feel, but it is non-standard. | 01:12:41 |
| Jan Tojnar | * Something like [](man:foo(5)) would bring best of both worlds – easily processable yet simple to type, but it is non-standard. | 01:13:53 |
| Jan Tojnar | * Something like [](man:foo(5)) would bring best of both worlds – easily processable yet simple to type. But it is non-standard. | 01:14:44 |
| Jan Tojnar | For others reading this, the PR: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/130047 | 02:06:18 |
 David Arnold (blaggacao) | In reply to @jtojnar:matrix.org
Or write [`foo(5)`][foo(5)] which is IMO even worse for writers than the MyST role. Have we considered
[`foo(5)`][]
[`foo(5)`]: http://b.org
? | 11:08:40 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | That's how I would intuitively write it, probably even with a MyST role in place. | 11:13:55 |
