Add Support for Asciidoc Readmes for packages in the website and the editor

[TheKamboy]

Have you checked for existing feature requests?

• [X] Completed

Summary

The website nor the editor support simple rendering of asciidoc readmes for packages, so I was wondering if that would be possible.

What benefits does this feature provide?

Support for different types of files used for readmes.

Any alternatives?

Maybe port over the way Github renders asciidoc files into the website and editor for viewing packages

Other examples:

shameless plug, but it is a good example

[confused-Techie]

Thanks for opening this issue and contributing!

We have for some time been aiming to support what GitHub does in terms of Markdown/CommonMark for package's READMEs and other related files. While this feels like a slight deviation from this, as it's a totally different language, it seems to make complete sense to me.

If we want to let people use a README the same way they do on GitHub, then we ought to look into properly supporting Asciidoc content, just like GitHub does, which honestly is news to me.

Taking a look into this, it seems GitHub actually supports quite a few other formats. Looking at the github/markup repo, we can get a full list of what they do support.

That being:

• .markdown, .mdown, .mkdn, .md: commonmarker
• .textile: RedCloth
• .rdoc: rdoc (No Parser source in their Readme)
• .org: org-ruby
• .creole: creole
• .mediawiki, .wiki: wikicloth
• .rst: docutils (No Parser source in their Readme)
• .asciidoc, .adoc, .asc: asciidoctor
• .pod: Pod::Simple::XHTML (No Parser source in their Readme)

So I'll say I'm totally on board with this, but as we don't currently use any of the tooling GitHub does to render a Readme, we can't just "port" the solution, it'll take a bit more work to pull off, but I'm fully on board with the idea. But I'll go ahead and speak to the team about this one.