Closed davidtheclark closed 6 years ago
Oh, yeah I get that my comment is confusing.
A good reason not to include parse5, is the rehype ecosystem may be used (with unified) without rehype-parse
(which does include parse5), but for example with remark-parse
!
Does that make more sense?
Oh, I understand. I'm doing my syntax highlighting at build time, instead of in the browser, so I'm fine with keeping it in, but open to PRs changing that. I'll edit the title of this issue to reflect.
@wooorm: In https://twitter.com/wooorm/status/880164835316596736 and https://twitter.com/wooorm/status/877970932970778624 you suggest it's be better avoid the parse5 dependency for browser envs: https://github.com/mapbox/rehype-prism/blob/a87a08502d9c7c7adecfb50aee9cfb9db310327f/index.js#L33-L35. However, isn't this already part of rehype (https://github.com/wooorm/rehype/blob/e5ff28c9a01eb09e69302739fd3b84f0d732b586/packages/rehype-parse/package.json#L29) ... so if someone's using rehype in the browser, they've already included parse5?