Hello, on Friday 13 January 2012 at 15:42, Martin Hofmann wrote: > > I would be very interested > > in hearing how to handle the hard part (the one I have given up on when > > I was trying to integrate libupskirt): how to make it play nice across > > the distributed nature of fossil, including nodes with older versions > > which do not include the change. > > Well, as I had admitted, this is an early stage, and of course it is a > bad idea to simply apply Markdown everywhere in one Fossil instance, and > nowhere in an other. > > What I would propose to handle the "hard part" (hope I understand your > point correctly) is: > > [snip]
Good, I'm glad to see you are aware of the "hard part" (yes, you understood correctly what I meant), and that you have even put some thoughts into it. That covers all I was worried about, so congratulations for what you've done and I wish you success for what remains to be done. I'm only a bit sad about the duplication of work in including different markdown engines into fossil. However I like to believe I still have a head-start in that I'm already willing to hand over copyright (assuming I can keep it over my own independant copy). Also, according to a private communication from a github employee, they switched from discount to a fork of my library because of "several critical security vulnerabilities that are not quite trivial to fix". I haven't been able to gather any further details, but considering how wide wiki-append-permissions seem supposed to be, I wouldn't treat wiki contents as trusted. But then again, standard markdown allows raw HTML inclusion, so security issues will eventually be raised (at least for people like me who would not trust wiki contributors with raw HTML). Natacha
pgpAqiLEA61Gr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
