I wouldn't say it's simple, but that's an argument for another forum. I guess "portable" and "already documented" work as good reasons, much to my chagrin.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:06 AM, D. Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 15, 2009, at 12:44 AM, Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene wrote: > > > I've got to ask, why do people still like HTML markup for formatting > > wiki? I mean the printing press was everywhere too, but it was a > > real annoyance to use and hardly efficient. > > > > > HTML is simple and consistent (if perhaps a little verbose) and HTML > provides all of the functionality needed by most documents. HTML can > also be rendered by any web browser. > > HTML isn't perfect. But for what it does, I don't know of anything > better. > > What exactly do you have in mind as a replacement for HTML? > > D. Richard Hipp > [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
