Idea: Send separate content.html and content.value content properties

[paulrobertlloyd]

Rather than default to HTML, provide both content.html and content.value when sending a Micropub request. For example:

"content": [{
    "html":"<p>Tuneresque</p><p><img src=\"https://getindiekit.github.io/sandbox/media/photos/2020/08/30/8u53c.jpg\" width=\"600\" height=\"839\" alt=\"Dramatic sunset over Brighton’s West Pier\" style=\"height: auto;\" class=\"sunlit_image\" /></p>",
    "value":"Tuneresque\n\n![Dramatic sunset over Brighton’s West Pier](https://getindiekit.github.io/sandbox/media/photos/2020/08/30/8u53c.jpg)"
}]

content.html can provide the content as HTML (with width, class and other attributes on the img), while context.value could provide a simpler representation, using Markdown for image references. That said, I’m unclear if Markdown is considered valid for content.value.

In #86, @manton responded:

I don't think it's clear how best to handle this, because passing separate Markdown-only text (without any HTML tags) will lose some data since Markdown image references can't have width/height/class. So I'm leaning to not changing this for now until there's more feedback from other Micropub implementations. We always recommend that people enable Markdown processing for anything posted from Micro.blog or Sunlit.

[cheesemaker]

Do we need to consider this at all or is #100 a good compromise here?

[paulrobertlloyd]

Happy to test this out when 3.2 arrives in TestFlight. Ultimately, I’d like Sunlit to provide a less opinionated syntax than the default HTML it currently provides, and it seems Markdown might be one way of achieving that, but I’m not sure.

[manton]

I think we should keep the current behavior, HTML-only for multiple sections. We can reconsider later but I think simpler (one format) is better here.