Should we copy the excalidraw plugin and have CookLang Markdown (.cook.md) files?

[deathau]

Pros:

• Will go into the cache, allowing base Obsidian functionality such as:
  • Appearing on graph view
  • Appearing in search
  • Embedding in markdown files
  • Appearing in dataview queries

Cons:

• A bit of development work to check for specific metadata and overwrite the default Markdown views
• Not true CookLang files, are actually .cook.md, therefore incompatible with other CookLang software.

Feel free to make any other points you can think of.

[kometenstaub]

You could add an export option from .cook.md to .cook. Maybe one option to do it on a per file basis, and one to export all .cook.md files.

[deathau]

This is a good point. And if I go down the .cook.md route, I will definitely have to include import/export

[claremacrae]

It feels cleaner to call them .cook files - reasons include:

• other software may start supporting .cook files, and it will cause needless complications if two different systems use different extensions (Oh, I see I'm agreeing with your second point above)
• on Windows, the default is to hide file extensions - many users don't know this, and leave it turned off - in which case, I believe they will see .cook.md files named as .cook files - which will also be confusing

[claremacrae]

What are the consequences of not being in the cache?

[RichSteele]

Besides not appearing in dataview queries the bigger thing is that normal Obsidian text queries won't find non-md files. So, I can find a specific recipe using file: but not all recipes containing "egg", for example.

[deathau]

Also embeds. Sometimes it would be nice to embed recipies in specific pages.

[claremacrae]

Tricky…

[dpickett]

the other downside is you can't use other plug-ins like vim mode