On 27 March 2012 17:35, Stephan Beal <[email protected]> wrote: > The considerations which have come to mind so far: > > - i would prefer to keep it in wiki form, as opposed to embedded docs, > because i often write docs from arbitrary locations. >
Yes - would prefer to not use fossil's wiki markup (i find it too verbose - > too close to HTML), but Google Code (it's what i know and like best). i > could _possibly_ be convinced to use Markdown if there are _compelling_ > arguments for it in this specific context (not in a generic sense). (But > please don't turn this thread into the re-re-re-visited wiki format debate!) > Personally I'd prefer MediWiki markup - as that's where the content is - but whatever :) Is it possible to include a JavaScript based skin switcher - that way you could have a choice of markups - given someone writing a skin with an embedded parser? - Because of the size of the docs (currently over 50 pages, which would > need to be split up into many wiki pages) and the frequency at which i tend > to update docs, i'd prefer to keep them out of the core fossil repo (to > avoid polluting it, basically), but... > > - It might be interesting to kick around the idea of adding > json.fossil-scm.org (Richard willing) and host the docs from there using > a custom JSON-based front-end like the one i've started porting my own > wikis to: > > Yes > While we could argue forever about the down-side of the non-googlability > of client-side-rendered wikis, i think it is important that that the > documentation for the JSON API be served via the JSON API, if for no other > reason than having it as the canonical demonstration app. > Yes - a static dump with links to the live wiki could help?
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
