Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Report missing images #872
Wondering if this has been thought about before, and if there are any reasons why it isn't implemented (apart from resources/priorities).
I'd be willing to give it a go if people think it is a good idea.
This could be a little tricky as Markdown files are checked against the Nav (a previously compiled list of pages), not against the file system. And in that part of the code we don't have access to the
In the end, I expect this to be more difficult that one would think. This will likely also be a problem if/when support for "hidden" pages is added (see #699). Those pages will be explicitly absent from the Nav and should not generate a warning, but with no way to determine that within the Markdown Extension, there is no way to conditionally not raise the warning.
I see two possibilities to that problem (which would also directly affect this issue):
The problem stems in part from the fact that Python-Markdown does not really support passing data to an extension to modify its behavior on a file-by-file basis. The idea is that you create a Markdown instance with a config, and that instance is used (without changing behavior) for multiple files. Of course, MkDocs gets around this by creating a new instance for each page, but the API wasn't really designed with this use-case in mind.