On 5/16/2010 12:49 PM, Ron Aaron wrote: > On Sunday 16 May 2010 19:23:07 Jeremy Cowgar wrote: > > >> Oh, one more thing I wanted to say.... Fossil is awesome with not just >> it's integrated ticket and wiki system but it's integrated and >> DISTRIBUTED ticket and wiki system. That's huge. >> > Yes. > > >> But, for all that, the lack of a complete wiki syntax (i.e. wiki = quick >> quick, not HTML!) still kills it for others and has just about killed it >> for me. I still have about 2% of my heart in continuing with Fossil, but >> that's not much. >> > I don't understand this at all. >
Documentation is one use, but currently for one project I have over 450 pages of documentation, tables, references, footnotes, lists, indents, code formatting, italic, bold, etc... There is no way under the sun I want to format that using HTML! Wow, what a mess. HTML is NOT a human language and it was NEVER intended on being so. It's a markup language. A wiki syntax is so much easier than HTML that I cannot understand how anyone would say they don't understand why you would want to use a wiki syntax. > If you want to use the wiki for documentation, you can. HTML gives you all > the flexibility you could possibly desire, without requiring one learn Yet > Another Markup Language. As an example of what's possible, just take a look > at a work-in-progress of mine: http://accord-sys.com/ -- (it's VERY much 'in > progress', but you get the idea). > > Um, HTML can do anything, no one said it's limited. It's verbose, that's the complaint. And no, you cannot do everything with HTML in Fossil. It strips different attributes/style tags/ class tags, etc... Thus, in situations where you want your typewriter to display a menu entry to be different than when you display a key sequence (which is standard in computer documentation), you cannot do it with Fossil's HTML markup. You can with a wiki markup. Thus, in that case, Wiki is more powerful than HTML, but that's not the point. >> that EVERYONE uses, but I am saying there ARE a few STANDARD wiki >> formats, of which Fossil wants nothing to do with for some reason that's >> far beyond me. >> > Exactly for the reason you mention: just what syntax should be used, or what > subset of that syntax? MediaWiki? Twiki? Joe's-excellent-wiki? > Who cares which one it is? Any is better than Fossil-Wiki (tm). Wiki syntaxes are so simple I can't imagine there is anyone here that can't learn it if they want. Further, if you don't want to use it, don't use it! Right now there is an option that says "Use HTML syntax for rendering instead of wiki syntax." It's a checkbox. With the addition of a wiki format, I imagine this would just change to a drop down selection: Wiki Syntax: HTML, FossilWiki, Markdown. Then if you want to stick with the verbose HTML, you can, if you wanted limited support for lists only, then use Fossil Wiki, if you want a full featured format, then use Markdown for your project. > I agree there are things in the wiki syntax which are odd or unusual -- but > any additional wiki code adds to the complexity and size of Fossil (and makes > it more prone to problems). > Not really. Once the wiki syntax is created, it should remain pretty stable. Initially there will be some bugs to work through, I'm sure, but once done, it's not as though the wiki syntax changes often. Jeremy _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
