On 3 August 2012 12:07, Remigiusz Modrzejewski <l...@maxnet.org.pl> wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2012, at 11:53 , Michal Suchanek wrote: > >> On 3 August 2012 11:23, Remigiusz Modrzejewski <l...@maxnet.org.pl> wrote: >>> +1 >> >> Why markdown and not one of the dozens of other wiki syntaxes? > > Because markdown is a very popular one, used by github, and we have on board > the creator of a major implementation (the one used by github, iirc).
The others are also very popular. Github has a cute logo but I would not turn to it when looking for sound technical solutions. > >> I don't find wiki syntaxes really easy. Maybe a bit easier to type >> than HTML but definitely not easy to read or remember, especially >> since there are dozens of slightly (and not so slightly) different >> variants. > > That's why half of the web seems to standarize on markdown. The same web that > was mostly writing HTML a few years ago. Does not seem that way to me. I deal with sites using various wiki format variations. If you want to make your point on that then supply more data, please. > >> Note there are JavaScript hacks for interpreting random wiki syntax so >> you can have markdown interpreted without any direct support in >> fossil. > > Note there are good wiki engines out there, so no need for one in Fossil too. > But once we set the scope to include something, please don't keep it > half-hearted... And it has been said that markdown is out of the scope of Fossil. I am not to decide that but I have to agree. Once you let in markdown people used to some other wiki syntax would argue they have needlessly hard time and there would be no end to the stream of requests to include yet another. Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
