Re: Omit code output going forward

On 10 November 2025 19:57:08 GMT, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech=2Ecom>=
 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=2E  =
There is the new in-page runner, which is guaranteed to give "correct" resu=
lts (or error if it's showing a feature that is incompatible)=2E
>
>I'd like to see us formally and explicitly decide on a policy here=2E
>
>And I will start by proposing that in most cases, we DO NOT need to inclu=
de manually-created output, as the in-page runner is superior and takes les=
s work for doc writers=2E  The only exception is where the runner doesn't s=
upport the code being shown for whatever reason=2E  (Like, it requires a fi=
le system, or some non-loaded extension, etc=2E)  In those cases, the tradi=
tional approach with a manual output block still makes sense=2E  But that's=
 a minority case now=2E
>

I think we should still include them=2E=2E Mostly because the website isn'=
t the only place were the content ends up=2E And also not everyone or every=
 device can play the Wasm runner=2E

And the wasm runner does support the file system=2E And we can even pre-se=
ed it=2E It's how we do the XML examples=2E You can also just write to it, =
and then read it again=2E=20

cheers=20
Derick=20