-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
Clarify remote Markdown support in Astro #12335
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Only built in loaders (file and glob) support built in markdown parsing. Since content collections now allow defining remote collections, this link is misleading.
✅ Deploy Preview for astro-docs-2 ready!Built without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
Lunaria Status Overview🌕 This pull request will trigger status changes. Learn moreBy default, every PR changing files present in the Lunaria configuration's You can change this by adding one of the keywords present in the Tracked Files
Warnings reference
|
Hello! Thank you for opening your first PR to Astro’s Docs! 🎉 Here’s what will happen next:
|
Thank you for this PR @paul-sachs ! We've been tracking down the specific support for Markdown in content collections, and I believe this phrase was added when we introduced Yes, So I think this phrasing needs a rewrite itself to discuss what is available/supported re: remote Markdown, and I think we should do away with saying "built in" and just be more explicit about the possibilities. Would you like to try writing something here that expresses more clearly that there is a parser for remote Markdown to help you build a custom loader for content collections, but otherwise you will need to handle parsing remote Markdown yourself? We can workshop it together! Do you have any thoughts on making this more helpful? |
@sarah11918 I can give it a try when I get some time though it'll take me some time to figure out exactly what we should say here. I think my primary concern was making it obvious that the |
Thanks @paul-sachs and for sure did not mean to put this on you! It may very well be that removing the link as you initially proposed is the right move here. Just wanted to check to see whether you had thoughts on this! We'll be working on this one too 😄 |
Description
Only built in loaders (file and glob) support built in markdown parsing. Since content collections now allow defining remote collections, this link is misleading.