StackExchange
DOCS: Add tooltips and distinction between not supported and not implemented to feature matrix
I found the feature matrix to be a bit unclear (Unknown vs unimplemented). It also seemed a shame that the comments built into the codebase were not shown at all, so now they're inside tooltips :)
Feels better to me, but lmk if you have other thoughts.
Hm. I had no way to test gitbook locally, and assumed it would at least accept html to the same degree github does. But it doesn't show the tooltips at all. That's a real shame.
I, too, can't test it locally. I just keep pushing new commits and wait for the PR to update with a link to the new draft gitbook.
@cafferata, can you assist here? Adding tooltips seems like a really good idea.
I also think tooltips are a good idea, but as @louis-lau already noticed they are unfortunately not supported in GitBook. As an alternative you could look into GitBook annotations:
You can write content as Markdown footnotes to add them as annotations in GitBook.
Here's a simple footnote,[^1] and here's a longer one.[^bignote]
[^1]: This is the first footnote.
[^bignote]: Here's one with multiple paragraphs and code.
Indent paragraphs to include them in the footnote.
`{ my code }`
Add as many paragraphs as you like.
https://gitbook.com/docs/creating-content/formatting/inline#annotations
So... what should we do here? Merge this and switch to footnotes later? Remove the tooltips (since they don't display) and keep the other stuff?
Can we file a feature request with GitBook to support tooltips?
The difference between unknown and unimplemented is already pretty nice on its own I'd say, together with the tiny bit of extra info at the top.
I kind of dislike footnotes for this as it will just be a giant list of them at the bottom, but it doesn't look like a choice. I can take a crack at it when I get the time, though my experience with golang is kind of surface level, you may be able to do it much quicker.
I've changed this to a "draft" so I don't accidentally merge it prematurely.