On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:11:35 -0400 >>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Hipp wrote:
Dear Richard, Richard> HTML is not "complete" enough? What do you want to do (or for Richard> that matter what does any other wiki system do) that you can't Richard> do (in a more "standard" way, I should add) with HTML? it is not point that HTML is not "complete", but it is simply too cumbersome to write documentation in HTML. Probably, that's why we have wikis and so many different kind of markup languages. For the same reason (cumberness), I do not use e.g. DocBook, but prefer more readable formats like Markdown and/or RestructuredText. Richard> The philosophy of Fossil Wiki is to provide simple and common Richard> wiki-style markup to accomplish 90% of what you need, then Richard> allow the use of HTML for the other 10%. Fossil's wiki is simply too limiting. E.g. "Only a single level of bullet list is supported by wiki. For nested lists, use HTML." is not acceptable for the writing docs, but I believe there is no need to repeat oneself since there are so many messages which were discussing the issues and several people expressed their sentiments in regard. Richard>HTML is seen as superior to increasingly arcane Wiki Richard> formatting for the complicated stuff because (1) most Richard> programmers already know HTML so there is nothing new to Richard> learn, Why you restrict usage of (Fossil) SCM only to programmers? I use SCM for ALL my writings and majority of that is not the code. Richard> (2) HTML is a standard, Yes, afaict, people desiring to see 'standard' wiki were/are ready to accept ANY COMPLETE wiki since it means support for converting, editing-modes etc, i.e. one can do ALL the documentation in the one wiki markup. Richard> (3) HTML allows you to do just about whatever you want to do Richard> in a web browser - it is "complete". The point is that by using e.g. Markdown/reST (along with Pandoc) it enables me to target not only HTML, but many other formats like PDF (check http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/) Richard> You can disagree with the design choice here. I do. :-) Richard> But please distinguish between a lack of understanding and a Richard> disagreement. I understand it is your choice since Fossil is your offspring. Richard> The "fossil ui" command lets you do exactly that. I use Richard> Fossil daily for work on SQLite. I normally enter and/or edit Richard> tickets off-line (using the "fossil ui" command) then push Richard> them up to the servers later. btw, what do you think about: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/tktview?name=3e3018e96f ? Richard>This is the standard way of working with Fossil. Ahh... Richard> I am sorry that you were left with the impression that one Richard> had to be online and connected to a server to work with Richard> Fossil tickets. I thought the documentation was reasonably Richard> clear on the point that tickets and wiki could be edited Richard> offline. Perhaps I can find a way to make it clearer. I believe there is no need to clarify documents...The problem was that I was so absorbed in cli-interface (reading roundup docs) that I completely forgot about 'fossil ui'. Sincerely, Gour -- Gour | Hlapicina, Croatia | GPG key: F96FF5F6 ----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
