As far as I know, DocumenterMarkdown didn't really make the transition to Documenter 1.0, so should we just remove it here (as well as anything else related to mkdocs)
Even if we wanted to keep mkdocs support: I'm not sure the way format is used here is very useful. E.g., with format=:pdf, it would generate (overwrite!) a make.jl file to only have a LaTeX() configuration. My intuition would be that Documenter pretty much always has an HTML() configuration, and then maybe a LaTeX() configuration in addition. I'd expect anything beyond HTML() a pretty special use case that people should set up "by hand", not something that the generator for a default make.jl would take into account.
So, I would recommend just removing the format option, and always generating a make.jl file with an HTML() configuration.
goerz
commented
7 months ago
Does the
formatstill make sense, here?https://github.com/JuliaDocs/DocumenterTools.jl/blob/5306737042cd5152685fd807417d590a1ead22f4/src/Generator.jl#L30-L37
As far as I know,
DocumenterMarkdowndidn't really make the transition to Documenter 1.0, so should we just remove it here (as well as anything else related tomkdocs)Even if we wanted to keep
mkdocssupport: I'm not sure the wayformatis used here is very useful. E.g., withformat=:pdf, it would generate (overwrite!) amake.jlfile to only have aLaTeX()configuration. My intuition would be thatDocumenterpretty much always has anHTML()configuration, and then maybe aLaTeX()configuration in addition. I'd expect anything beyondHTML()a pretty special use case that people should set up "by hand", not something that the generator for a defaultmake.jlwould take into account.So, I would recommend just removing the
formatoption, and always generating amake.jlfile with anHTML()configuration.