On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:19 , Michal Suchanek wrote: >>> 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). > > Github has a cute logo but I would not turn to it when looking for > sound technical solutions.
Still, somehow, they don't seem a failure. A cute logo can't buy that... >> 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. No data. Just the anecdotal: a few years ago most input fields I've hit on the web accepted sanitized HTML, now they take markdown. Yeah, they're usually not wikis (but the wiki engine I use actually uses markdown). >>> 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. I've read the "we'll have requests for all the markups in the world" argument many times. I can't remember anyone actually coming and asking for *anything* else than markdown. Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
