-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 109
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
Call ditaa with command line arguments #69
Comments
No that's not yet possible, but shouldn't be too hard to add. I propose adding support for passing ditaa command line arguments as block attributes. For instance:
|
Resolved by 887a577
|
Awesome, thanks! However, the image caching mechanism seems to be too aggressive now. Changing the options without changing the ascii image does not regenerate it. Is there some work-around? |
Thanks for catching that one. The options are indeed not taken into account for the cache validation. Oversight on my part. I'll try to fix that this evening. |
5149ac6 makes the ditaa processor take the options attribute into account when deciding if the image needs to be regenerated or not. |
I'm definitely in support of this approach, but I wonder if we should also have the option of making these customizations globally using document attributes. wdyt? Something like:
or even
|
Sounds like a good idea. My first implementation actually had the options in the form you're using above; without the double-dashes. That looked more asciidoc-like in my eyes than raw command line arguments. I backed away from that approach thinking that it might be easier for users (and less documentation work) if you could just use the command line arguments of the tool in question as is. If we go ahead with the above syntax then the same syntax should be supported on the blocks themselves imo.
globally or
at the block level. @saschazelzer any preference from your side? Make it look asciidoc-ish or stick with the raw command line options? |
I like what you've suggested, esp the document level attribute. |
I would definitely use document attributes if they were available. As a consequence, the syntax should be the same at the block level, as you already said. Your example above looks good to me. I am not an expert asciidoc user (yet) though. |
Reopening for syntax change and document attribute support |
I ended up implementing the following:
The semantics of the options are
|
Huge 👍 ! |
This is great, thanks! |
Hi,
is it possible to specify command line arguments or something equivalent in the asciidoc file when running ditaa? I would like to control effects like box shadows and box separations which is possible via ditaa command line arguments
--no-separation
and--no-shadows
.Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: