You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I use docsify to generate an organized documentation website based on the markdown documentation (can be found in the ./docs folder in that fork). The API reference is generated with this plugin. This works really well, for which I commend you 👏.
The generated website (GitHub pages) can be found here.
As can be seen, the links generated by docgen are broken, because they are a <a> element instead of a markdown link.
It would be solved by changing: <code><a href="#foobar">FooBar</a></code>
to <code>[FooBar](#foobar)</code>
The docsify team said the following:
You need generate markdown syntax. Such as
[MyClass](#MyClass)
It will not be compiled if it is HTML.
Therefore I hope it can be solved in this plugin. As far as I can see now, I don't think this change does have any drawbacks, so it would make sense to implement it like this. But please do share your opinion about this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently we are busy refactoring the Capacitor Google Maps plugin. One of the improvements is better documentation. The fork (WIP) can be found here: https://github.com/DutchConcepts/capacitor-google-maps/tree/next
I use
docsify
to generate an organized documentation website based on the markdown documentation (can be found in the./docs
folder in that fork). The API reference is generated with this plugin. This works really well, for which I commend you 👏.The generated website (GitHub pages) can be found here.
As can be seen, the links generated by docgen are broken, because they are a
<a>
element instead of a markdown link.It would be solved by changing:
<code><a href="#foobar">FooBar</a></code>
to
<code>[FooBar](#foobar)</code>
The docsify team said the following:
Therefore I hope it can be solved in this plugin. As far as I can see now, I don't think this change does have any drawbacks, so it would make sense to implement it like this. But please do share your opinion about this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: