|
|
|
|
|
by dmbaturin
825 days ago
|
|
Delegating the complexity to the user was my biggest motivation behind many features of soupault. Hugo has two different Markdown libraries baked in and you have to choose them, and it also had hardcoded commands to call rST and AsciiDoc processors. If you are migrating from a different SSG, Markdown processors behavior differences can bite you and there's no way out. With soupault, you just configure a command to convert a file with a certain extension to HTML, and all features (ToC, footnotes, anything provided by plugins...) work the same because they they are implemented by manipulating the parsed HTML element tree. Want a CSS preprocessor? You can pipe <style> tag contents through any external program if you feel like it. Want to re-compress or manipulate images? You can write a Lua script that gets their paths from <img> and <picture> tags and calls an external program on their files. And so on. |
|
> Markdown processors behavior differences can bite you and there's no way out.
is under appreciated. The lack of “surprises” in Soupault is very appreciated.