On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:11:35 -0400, Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Gour wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 11:30:40 +0100
> >>>>>> "Eric" == "Eric" wrote:
>
> Eric> > Otherwise, lack of standard wiki
> Eric>
> Eric> I continue to be amazed by all this nonsense about the wiki.
>
> s/standard/complete/g
>
> HTML is not "complete" enough? What do you want to do (or for that
> matter what does any other wiki system do) that you can't do (in a more
> "standard" way, I should add) with HTML?
well I kind of like this
|c table caption
|=2 head|= head
| data|
[[http://bouml.free.fr/|{{http://bouml.free.fr/images/bouml_titre.gif}}]]|
data
| data| {{http://bouml.free.fr/images/bouml_titre.gif|bouml image}}| data
versus
>
> The philosophy of Fossil Wiki is to provide simple and common wiki-style
> markup to accomplish 90% of what you need, then allow the use of HTML
for
> the other 10%. HTML is seen as superior to increasingly arcane Wiki
> formatting for the complicated stuff because (1) most programmers
already
> know HTML so there is nothing new to learn, (2) HTML is a standard, and
> (3) HTML allows you to do just about whatever you want to do in a web
> browser - it is "complete". You can disagree with the design choice
> here. But please distinguish between a lack of understanding and a
> disagreement.
There is one argument for using "wiki" I haven't seen.
It can be a meta language. You can opt to translate
# Item1
html <ol><li>Item1</li></ol>
docbook <orderedlist<listitem>Item1</listitem></orderedlist>
ODF <list><list-item>Item1</list-item></list>
Arguable I used a very simple example.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
