The issue has been closed
Originally posted by @fregante in https://github.com/sindresorhus/refined-github/pull/3678#discussion_r510589853:
I'd like to see the most lightweight Markdown parser being run directly to the description text to store HTML so the entire parseDescription function can be dropped.
Parser example: Holixus/nano-markdown
bundlephobia.com/result?p=nano-markdown@1.2.1
I've done a little comparison between multiple lightweight Markdown parsers, and I don't think we can directly use any of them đ
Features they should support:
- code span with single backtick:
`` ` ``
- code span with a backticked word:
`` `bla` ``
- inline URLs:
https://example.org or <https://example.org>
- don't escape HTML tags:
**bold** or <b>bold</b>
| Parser |
Size |
1. single backtick |
2. backticked word |
3. inline URLs |
4. don't escape HTML |
| nano-markdown |
2kB |
:x: |
:x: |
:x: |
:heavy_check_mark: |
| snarkdown |
2kB |
:x: |
:x: |
:x: |
:heavy_check_mark: |
| downa |
1.9kB |
:x: |
:x: |
:x: |
:heavy_check_mark: |
| md.js |
2.7kB |
:x: |
:x: |
:x: |
:heavy_check_mark: |
| tinydown |
4kB |
:heavy_check_mark: |
:heavy_check_mark: |
:x: |
:x: |
| drawdown |
1.5kB <sup>1)</sup> |
:heavy_check_mark: |
:x: |
:x: |
:x: |
| mmd.js |
0.8kB <sup>2)</sup> |
:x: |
:x: |
:x: |
:x: |
Notes:
1) not distributed via npm, 2.8kB unminified, about 1.5kB minified
2) not distributed via npm, 1.0kB unminified, 0.8kB minified
I donât think that the first column is correct, Snarkdown does support back ticks, itâs in the first example.
Also what happens when âhtml is not supportedâ? Support means leaving it untouched; does it mean it escapes it instead? Snarkdown specifically says âit doesnât sanitize HTMLâ either, which appears to be what we want.
Double backticks arenât on my priority list by the way; if theyâre supported without a mess, itâs good; if not, no problem, we can use <code> in the readme.
Actually the module isnât meant to be packaged, I wrongly mentioned the need to be small. What matters is speed, since we donât want it to slow down the build further.
Any decent CommonMark library should do.
Snarkdown does support back ticks, itâs in the first example
All modules do support simple lorem `ipsum` dolor code spans. The first column is specifically about code spans with single backtick (`` ` ``), the second one about code spans with a backticked word (`` `bla` ``). I didn't think about just being able to use <code> in the readme though.
Also what happens when âhtml is not supportedâ? Support means leaving it untouched; does it mean it escapes it instead?
:heavy_check_mark: = HTML is untouched
:x: = HTML is escaped (e.g. <b>bold</b> â <b>bold</b>)
Actually the module isnât meant to be packaged, I wrongly mentioned the need to be small. What matters is speed, since we donât want it to slow down the build further.
Any decent CommonMark library should do.
I think that makes finding a suitable library much easier, though it's difficult to judge the speed. I'll try to find one :)
To judge the speed: use the library and run the build again. If it takes ~the same time weâre good.
IssueHunt