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

When should we markdownify things? #274

Closed
BryanQuigley opened this issue Apr 18, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #275
Closed

When should we markdownify things? #274

BryanQuigley opened this issue Apr 18, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #275

Comments

@BryanQuigley
Copy link
Collaborator

In ODP we added, markdownify in several places:
opendataphilly/opendataphilly-jkan@d30da95
opendataphilly/opendataphilly-jkan@5b8cd10

In certain cases, we ended up tweaking datasets to make them look better as enabling all markdown can make the datasets list page messy.

Should we enable Markdown in more places upstream?

@timwis
Copy link
Owner

timwis commented Apr 19, 2023

Yeah, great idea 👍🏻 Sounds like it would be a non-breaking change as well, right?

The only other thing to consider is that we could use the main content for that. For example:

---
title: Sample Dataset
organization: Commerce Department
---
Multi-line

_markdown description_

**goes here**

In the template, we'd then just write {{ content }} if I recall correctly.

But I think keeping it as a front-matter field probably makes more sense, because (a) the editor UI makes it a nice user experience anyway, and (b) we may want to use the content area for something else, like visualizations, in the future.

Btw, we can probably update the editor UI to use a markdown/rich text field for this.

@BryanQuigley
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I did consider the main content, but that seems like a much bigger change to how things work.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants