Personally, I don't see much need for fossil to have built-in support
for rendering anything much richer than its own wiki or the vanilla
markdown we have now.
I happily use fossil as-is for storing writing projects. Lately I write
in a combination of markdown and LaTeX (usually LuaLaTeX, specifically),
using Pandoc to do the needed transformation and either replacing its
stock template or supplying my own outer .tex file to assemble the
finished product.
On 8/14/2014 5:41 AM, Gour wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 12:50:21 +0200
"j. van den hoff" <veedeeh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I thus quite probably still would prefer the LaTeX route for serious
typesetting. but overall asciidoc is really great.
Don't forget there is Pandoc. ;)
I tried to like ASCIIDoc, but the whole FOP framework and its assumption
that a giant Java application is ok just in my way too often. I do wish
for finer control over tables and figures from time to time, so far I've
done what I needed by at worst post-processing the TeX emitted by Pandoc
and often just be dropping literal TeX in the markdown source.
--
Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com
Cheshire Engineering Corp. http://www.CheshireEng.com/
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
