asciidoctor-web-pdf missing

[boydkelly]

Would be awesome to get asciidoctor-web-pdf here as well....

[dduportal]

Hello @boydkelly , thanks for reporting!

Could you help us by adding some context please?

• A link to the associated project you mentioned: asciidoctor-web-pdf?
• Describe the use case, or what you would expect from the image with an example without the image?

It would help the community to evaluate and eventually add the feature.

Of course if you feel good about this, you can try opening a PR with a test case and the requested software installation in the Dockerfile: you can be part of the contributors :)

[slonopotamus]

I believe @boydkelly is talking about https://github.com/Mogztter/asciidoctor-web-pdf

[mojavelinux]

I'm conflicted about adding this project to the Docker container yet. While it's certainly represents the future of where we want to go with PDF generation, it's not yet an official Asciidoctor project. So I think we'd be putting the cart in front of the horse by putting it in the Docker container before we officially announce it as part of the project and its relationship with Asciidoctor PDF. With that said, I'm going to have to vote against this for the time being. But I will begin taking the steps necessary to graduate it so we can add it in the future.

[juracy]

@mojavelinux Interesting! I had never seen it this way! All components of this image are official projects of the asciidoctor ...
Is this really a requirement?

[mojavelinux]

I would prefer it that way, yes. That's because by putting something in the image, we are implicitly suggesting it's supported by the Asciidoctor community. And the boundaries of that support is the Asciidoctor organization on GitHub. I don't want to put the cart in front of the horse on this.

[juracy]

@mojavelinux So, we have same problem in #191 ...
All right, in this case another docker image (outside asciidoctor organization), using preferably asciidoctor.js (kroki, web-pdf, and so on), will be a better solution! What do you think?

[mojavelinux]

It's certainly worth discussing. I'll comment there.

[mojavelinux]

So, we have same problem in #191

That's different because Kroki is a partner project of Asciidoctor and therefore is part of the ecosystem by extension.

[mojavelinux]

I've given this more thought and I am willing to concede to adding asciidoctor-web-pdf to this image as long as the README clearly states that it's an unofficial add-on and subject to change.

We're going to be changing our strategy for PDF to focus on web-based generation instead of using Prawn. However, since I've been knee deep in wrapping up the release of Asciidoctor PDF 2, I have not yet had a time to review this new converter and decide how we're going to proceed. The web-based converter we graduate into the Asciidoctor organization could end up being different than what Asciidoctor Web PDF offers today. For example, I would prefer that it be written in Ruby and use Asciidoctor rather than Asciidoctor.js. But this is all yet to be decided. We just don't know.

Having a separate Docker image for the core parts of Asciidoctor and a separate image that includes community extensions and add-ons (box) would make this all a lot less complex. We're very limited right now by only having a single Docker image.

[dduportal]

I've given this more thought and I am willing to concede to adding asciidoctor-web-pdf to this image as long as the README clearly states that it's an unofficial add-on and subject to change.

We're going to be changing our strategy for PDF to focus on web-based generation instead of using Prawn. However, since I've been knee deep in wrapping up the release of Asciidoctor PDF 2, I have not yet had a time to review this new converter and decide how we're going to proceed. The web-based converter we graduate into the Asciidoctor organization could end up being different than what Asciidoctor Web PDF offers today. For example, I would prefer that it be written in Ruby and use Asciidoctor rather than Asciidoctor.js. But this is all yet to be decided. We just don't know.

Having a separate Docker image for the core parts of Asciidoctor and a separate image that includes community extensions and add-ons (box) would make this all a lot less complex. We're very limited right now by only having a single Docker image.

Thanks for the insights @mojavelinux, it's really clear.

Incoming effort on splitting the image into separate ones.

[barthel]

@dduportal What is the status regarding the separation of Docker images?
I have not been able to find an issue for this at the moment.

If you are interested, I can provide my full-blown Docker image as a contribution.