Re: Omit code output going forward

On 10 November 2025 19:57:08 GMT, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote: >In a couple of issues now, we've run into an impass because it's unclear if we still >need to include the output of code samples in manual pages. There is the new in-page runner, which >is guaranteed to give "correct" results (or error if it's showing a feature that is >incompatible). > >I'd like to see us formally and explicitly decide on a policy here. > >And I will start by proposing that in most cases, we DO NOT need to include manually-created >output, as the in-page runner is superior and takes less work for doc writers. The only exception >is where the runner doesn't support the code being shown for whatever reason. (Like, it >requires a file system, or some non-loaded extension, etc.) In those cases, the traditional >approach with a manual output block still makes sense. But that's a minority case now. > I think we should still include them.. Mostly because the website isn't the only place were the content ends up. And also not everyone or every device can play the Wasm runner. And the wasm runner does support the file system. And we can even pre-seed it. It's how we do the XML examples. You can also just write to it, and then read it again. cheers Derick