Good questions. Currently it replaces the existing markdown parser which can break existing files. This is why I suggested the repo wide setting. There are other possible solutions (switch on extension being one as well) but having different markdown flavours in one repo just feels wrong to me.
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017, 15:38 Scott Robison, <sc...@casaderobison.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Mark Janssen <mpc.jans...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > My question to you all is, would there be any interest in adding > commonmark support? > > > I like the idea of a more fully featured markdown implementation. Would > this replace the existing markdown support or be in addition to it? If > replace, would it "break" existing repos that are using markdown? If people > have .md files with the existing markdown support, might this need a > different extension? > > -- > Scott Robison > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
