Pointing out a problem does not require an answer to the problem. But here, let me do the googling work for you: http://redcloth.org/hobix.com/textile/quick.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile_(markup_language) http://www.wikidot.com/doc:wiki-syntax http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax <http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax>http://redcloth.org/ <http://redcloth.org/>http://www.textism.com/tools/textile/
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:23 AM, D. Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 15, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene wrote: > > > 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. > > Compared to TeX or Docbook or RTF or troff, I'd say that HTML very > simple. Can you suggest something simpler? > > Creole wiki is simpler, but doesn't do nearly as much. Of course, you > could also argue that HTML does not do everything that TeX will do. > To this I would counter that HTML seems to hit a sweet spot balancing > function and complexity. HTML + some very simple wiki rules (as > implemented in fossil) is sweeter still. > > You can argue all you want that "HTML is too complex" but unless you > can offer an alternative, your argument is hollow. > > > 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
