I don't understand why you have to write your docs in Fossil's formatting "language". Isn't that equivalent to being constrained to a particular programming language by the scm system?
-- Michael L. Barrow On May 15, 2010, at 5:23, 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. > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 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
