Using markup-based configuration for style rules with the raw scope

[ptgott]

While playing around with markup-based configuration, I realized that styles with the raw scope cannot be disabled using in-document comments. Should this be considered a bug?

On one side, I could see a docs admin wanting to treat all markup, including comments, as an input to a style rule with a raw scope, so comments shouldn't have any special meaning.

On the other side, it would make sense for docs authors to be able to disable a style rule for a passage of text, regardless of the rule's scope. It is surprising behavior to see a rule listed in Vale's output, attempt to disable the rule for part of a document using comments, but see no change to the output. In my case, I want to make a Vale-based CI workflow required for docs pull requests to be merged, but don't want to do so without giving docs authors the ability to disable style rules in the case of a false positive.

Maybe it would make sense to make this behavior configurable? What do you think?

[jdkato]

Comment processing is done after a document is converted to HTML. Rules using the raw scope aren't run on the converted document, which means that no markup-related features (comments, ignore patterns, etc.) will work.

However, you should only need to use the raw scope when targeting markup syntax itself. So the cases should be pretty rare and specific.