Pete Gonzalez

The [TSDoc Playground](https://microsoft.github.io/tsdoc/) does not implement `@example` because it is [currently specified](https://github.com/Microsoft/tsdoc/blob/c547b0338da201697016c08d41916e3bb031abd9/tsdoc/src/details/StandardTags.ts#L96) as ["extended" standardization level](https://github.com/Microsoft/tsdoc/blob/c547b0338da201697016c08d41916e3bb031abd9/tsdoc/src/details/Standardization.ts#L19). [API Extractor](https://api-extractor.com/) is a separate project that incorporates TSDoc, but is not itself part...

BTW if `@example` is popular, I'm fine with updating the playground to demo this feature. However e.g. @sharwell was questioning that above.

That's a good suggestion. Currently API Documenter simply generates names like `Example 1`, `Example 2`, etc. Not as informative as it could be. > Maybe in `@example Name - ...`...

I will work on putting up some proper documentation this month. We have procrastinated it too long. :-)

Good question! Here's a quick summary of the status: | Markdown feature | Support | HTML workaround | Notes | | -- | -- | -- | -- | |code...

No, it definitely needs to be supported by the TSDoc parser first, then API Documenter can add support for rendering it. Could you open a separate TSDoc issue asking for...

@bookmooons Are you sure that annotating core/extended text needs to be the burden of the documentation author? Different IntelliSense engines may have different requirements: - the tooltip box may be...

When the documentation tool (e.g. API Extractor) processes the directive `@codeReference recipeDemoClass`, how should it determine the path `some/path/to/demo_recipe/demo_recipe.ts`? Maybe it would be better for this path to be specified...

The `@link` tags normally refer to APIs that are exported from the package entry point. If they needed to refer to some other file, the syntax allows a file path....

I thought about it some more. Here's some possible design alternatives we could consider: - Maybe we could call the tag `@includeSnippet` instead of `@codeReference`. This might better convey the...