Okay, after all that, I feel like distilling this down to its essence (according to my own opinions, naturally) might be in order.
I feel like we basically have three sane options available: 1. Make some very minor changes to the Fossil source, where it generates pretty viewable web pages, to make it much easier to retrofit syntax highlighting via JS libraries for those users who want it. Get someone to write up a currently-effective guide to getting it set up, but make it a sort of unofficial, community guide. Do not officially support syntax highlighting at all. Do not bother screwing around with anything making line numbering play well with JS syntax highlighting unless and until someone presents a patch that fits with this philosophy of not supporting syntax highlighting but enabling it when easy to do so. 2. Pick a single JS syntax highlighting library (highlight.js) to bless. Include a guide in official docs for setting it up in deployment. Specify a supported version range for each Fossil release. Unless line numbering is found to be easy to work in, just write it off and officially declare that line numbering and syntax highlighting do not play well together, but keep that on the radar for figuring out later if possible. Call this "officially tested, but not officially supported". 3. Ship that library with Fossil. There's no need for identifying a supported range: either you use what ships with it or you're on your own, and we don't care any longer. I think taking this approach without resolving the line numbering problem has some issues for purposes of perception of the project, though, so I think one of the following two things should happen here: either call it experimental with firm plans to resolve the line numbering issue before calling it a release feature, or don't do this at all. While using an approach similar to GitHub's for purposes of easing transition from GitHub to self-hosted Fossil would be nice, if it's too much work to do so it shouldn't stand in the way of getting a good solution for Fossil. This feels like one of those "perfect is the enemy of good enough" situations, for a case that is only "perfect" with regard to ensuring people are slightly more inclined to switch from GitHub to self-hosted Fossil. In fact, considering there's probably nobody else providing that kind of fine-grained display characteristics similarity with GitHub, this doesn't feel like a critical issue at all. Most people probably just wouldn't even expect it to be that similar, I'd think. Follow RFCs carefully, provide similarity of implementation to GitHub for convenience if it's not too much trouble, and move on. YMMV. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
