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

Converter should be able to process any AsciiDoc document #47

Open
mojavelinux opened this issue Nov 2, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@mojavelinux
Copy link
Member

commented Nov 2, 2015

Currently, the converter is very picky about the structure of the AsciiDoc document. When the document isn't exactly as it expects (see https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor-epub3#declaring-the-spine), it fails in often spectacular ways. This problem appears in all of the following issues:

Instead, the converter should be able to handle any AsciiDoc document and do what it can to produce a sane result (or issue a clear error or warning otherwise). Naturally, the best result will be achieved when the structure is followed, but that should be a refinement rather than a prerequisite.

This is an umbrella issue to aggregate all these issues into one and clearly specify what needs to happen to fix it.

@mojavelinux mojavelinux added the bug label Nov 2, 2015

@mojavelinux mojavelinux self-assigned this Nov 2, 2015

@mojavelinux mojavelinux added this to the v1.5.0 milestone Nov 2, 2015

@chloerei

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Nov 2, 2015

Current asciidoctor-epub3 create epub spine(structure) by IncludeProcessor, I think epub spine should be create from document internal structure, for example, split document by level 1 sections.

@mojavelinux

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Nov 23, 2015

I'm leaning that way. We did it the way it is now as an experiment to see if we could use the include as a way to demarcate the boundaries between the entries so that it could be controlled by the author. I still think this is an interesting approach, but I think it should be an option to divide the book using the structure instead. So perhaps we want both ways to be supported.

The problem with dividing on the structure is that we still don't have proper support in the AST to split the document. It mostly works, but there are some things that don't get reparented correctly. We'll need to (finally) address them to support this change.

@ciampix

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 18, 2016

@vinipsmaker

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jan 17, 2017

I'm not convinced why I should include multiple document level headers. I'm creating one document, not several of them. The document header is the one which will receive the author and so on attributes.

I'm not convinced I should pervert my document structure to please asciidoctor.

Level 1 sections are what I'd see as chapters.

@gdamore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 3, 2018

Actually using the include files to demarcate document structure hurts me pretty badly. I want to build a combined reference manual that is built up using man pages, and I have a section chapter (e.g. section 3 for library API calls) that then does sub-includes (with level offsets) for each of those included files. This falls down hard with the epub generator.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.