On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Gour <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
So it really comes down to a matter of personal preference. You say HTML is cumbersome. I say that Markdown, etc. are arbitrary and cumbersome. Different people have different ideas. And yet, by virtue of supporting HTML, the wiki in Fossil is both standard and complete, for reasonable meanings of those words. What you really mean to say is that the fossil wiki does not suit your tastes in wiki and you would prefer something different. It's an emacs versus vi thing. btw, what do you think about: > > http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/tktview?name=3e3018e96f ? > Ticket change histories can be seen by following the links in the submenu bar at the top of the ticket display. Example: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/tkthistory/49929a3557 http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/tkttimeline?name=49929a3557 -- --------------------- D. Richard Hipp [email protected]
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
