On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:06:45 +0200 Michal Suchanek <[email protected]> wrote:
[...] >> Stackoverflow and all the sites under its umbrella, and all the >> sites using this engine, use (modified) markdown syntax [1], [2]. > So again a somewhat slightly incompatible variation. Correct, but I hardly perceive this as being an issue. [...] > > I, for one, while not being a special fan of markdown syntax (to > > me, the best sytnax I ever had to deal with was that used by > > wiki.tcl.tk), still think that the proliferation of wiki markups > > place everyone in position where one just can pick a syntax to use > > almost at random. > And for fossil it has been picked already. The idea behind pushing Markdown (or whatever else) engine to Fossil is providing a *rich* set of markup capabilities. The problem with builtin Fossil markup engine is that its too simplistic to be usable. In fact, it's usable for one-line pages, but as soon as you want to roll something a bit more complicated (itemized/numerated lists being the first feature I need) you bump to the need of writing HTML, with no support from the UI to do so. I do understand the rationale for this approach; if I were the author of Fossil (I'm incapable for this, but let's pretend I am, for the moment) I'd probably pick the same approach during an early phase of development. Now it seems that quite many users see overly simple markup capabilities of the Fossil's wiki engine to be a problem; a soultion exists and is even integrated. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
