As I noted from the Help, transclusion only supports plain text, Markdown, and HTML documents are transcluded contents.
Obsidian’s syntax is not standard and we are not supporting any and all the syntax Obsidian (or any other Markdown editor) decides they want to implement.
If nothing else, Obsidian should be supporting the syntax of the Markdown specification.
1.) As can be seen from my example an image can be transcluded. So this is considered a bug?
2.) The problem with using a path while transcluding is probably another bug?
I would also like to voice my support for a feature request to support transclusion of images. Thanks!
1.) As can be seen from my example an image can be transcluded. So this is considered a bug?
Is it maybe not considered a bug, but a “happy accident”?
Regarding my question 2: Does transcluding a supported document (not an image) work using a path_ for you?
This is the expected result, though have the image in the same group as the Markdown file as well as a copy in the Ressourcen group to make the absolute link.
I found one yesterday, but it didn’t include the image syntax. It’s a PDF though. For the image syntax, I went through the websites for CommonMark et al
Obsidian does nothing of the sort. That is standard MD.
Obsidian (and others) use [[MyPage]] to create a link to MyPage (as does DT). Obsidian devs decided to extend that syntax to say if there is a ! prepended then display the item vs. create a link, borrowing from the MD syntax.
Just like [MyImage](http://myserver/MyInage.jpg) would create a link to image and ![MyImage](http://myserver/MyInage.jpg) displays it.
There isnt a standard transclusion syntax for Markdown. There is a standard image syntax which Obsidian does support because it uses CommonMark. But Obsidian lets you transclude multiple file types like images, PDFs, etc.
I believe @jasonekratz is correct: there is no true standard for Markdown syntax, and MultiMarkdown is a dialect or derivative (and mostly just one person’s idea of a direction to take). Efforts to standardize Markdown have been drawn out and controversial, and Gruber seems to dislike the current efforts (c.f. Standard Markdown Becomes Common Markdown then CommonMark).
Regardless of Gruber’s feelings on it, he essentially defined a loose standard the moment he defined his schema.
And MultiMarkdown has often been seen as a natural extension of the original spec, while honoring the core he defined.