WIP: parse headings containing RDFa as block_rdfa#1329
WIP: parse headings containing RDFa as block_rdfa#1329
block_rdfa#1329Conversation
a086289 to
ab31283
Compare
piemonkey
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For existing headings with links (made using the rdfaAware mode), this seems to work as expected, so I think just keeping the config option, but deprecating it, would work well to make this backwards compatible.
It seems that now there is a difference between headings that are loaded and headings that are inserted, as in order to insert a heading with an RDFa block, it's necessary to both insert the block and the heading. I think the most expected behaviour would be to parse headings created with RdfaAware: true as just a heading if they do not have any backlinks, and only with a wrapping block if they do. Alternatively, we could always insert a block_rdfa with every heading, but I think this would be more confusing...
09a205a to
e9b510d
Compare
|
@elpoelma this pr needs another look, I've forgotten exactly what the problem was and how the fix works. Let me know if you happen to have a moment to investigate. No urgency, just cleaning up prs |
Overview
While we technically support rdfa on heading nodes, we don't really support it in a user-friendly/good way.
To solve this issue, we could parse headings containing RDFa as
block_rdfanodes containing a simple heading node (without RDFa). An example of such a solution is included in this PR.How to test/reproduce
block_rdfanode (containing the RDFa) with a simpleheadingnode inside.Challenges/uncertainties
heading.Checks PR readiness