Ok. These are good arguments. Thanks again for your help and efforts!
I can speak to this. So the {{%
was not really an intentional decision. When I ported that theme, I tried to keep things as same as possible. When the last Hugo shortcode features were released, that particular theme shortcode still âjust workedâ. So I left it as is. Plus it wouldnât break things for folks already using the theme.
Now, I did have to update a few of the theme shortcodes. If youâre interested see Fix the following shortcodes to work with new hugo ver: fileTree, ticks ¡ zwbetz-gh/cupper-hugo-theme@5da8f5a ¡ GitHub
Thank you, Zachary! Your comment helps me very much deciding how to use use/differenciate between the two possibilities.
BTW: I love your clean and simple themes and your clear template and shortcode style. I visit your projects regularly!
Happy to help! And as Bep mentioned, if I was writing that shortcode from scratch, Iâd use {{<
Appreciate it
@bep there is still another breaking change though. Consider my example from before:
myshortcode.html:
<div class="notice">
{{ .Inner }}
</div>
{{% myshortcode %}}
Lorem ipsum [dolor](https://example.org) sit amet.
{{% /myshortcode %}}
Now, as we know, this would not render the markdown of the inner content, without specifying | markdonify
.
However, even with | markdownify
, the output will not be as expected.
Output before 0.55:
<div class="notice">
<p>Lorem ipsum <a href="https://example.org">dolor</a> sit amet.</p>
</div>
Output in 0.55:
<div class="notice">
Lorem ipsum <a href="https://example.org">dolor</a> sit amet.
</div>
It does not render the paragraph.
Another test:
{{% myshortcode %}}
Lorem ipsum [dolor](https://example.org) sit amet.
Consectetuer adipiscing elitr.
{{% /myshortcode %}}
This in turn will render as
<div class="notice">
<p>Lorem ipsum <a href="https://example.org">dolor</a> sit amet.</p>
<p>Consectetuer adipiscing elitr.</p>
</div>
in 0.55 (with {{ .Inner | markdownify }}
).
Sure we could use the {{ $_hugo_config :={ âversionâ: 1 }}}
setting. But obviously I would rather continue with the new approach.
One could say that itâs another symptom of the same breaking change. Let us discuss it here: