On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Chad Perrin <c...@apotheon.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:40:01AM -0700, Sam Putman wrote:
> >
> > As a target, I would suggest the emitted html look as much like this
> > as possible:
> >
> > view-source:https://github.com/jvirkki/libbloom/blob/master/bloom.c
> >
> > The actual code block begins at line 821.
> >
> > This style of markup is a de-facto standard and leads to a linking
> > style that would greatly aid migration from git if fossil could adhere
> > to it.
> I'm not sure how this has any effect on migration from git to fossil,
> though.  Git export and Fossil import wouldn't touch this code.  Are you
> talking about some kind of external tools being able to interact with
> this code in the browser?  If so, the classes involved probably come
> from whatever JS library is used for syntax highlighting anyway, rather
> than from something like code internal to Fossil (unless syntax
> highlighting gets implemented in C as part of Fossil).
> I guess the upshot is that I'm not sure what you mean, and all I've been
> able to do so far is guess.
It's a related but distinct feature, the ability to render links like this


Github, Gitlab, and Gogs will all correctly render that link, and various
links of the same form.

This is a good convention for making URIs for branches, files, lines, and
the like.  These
URIs get embedded into documentation and tickets, anywhere you might want a
hyperlink in your rendered cod.  The schema would work as well for fossil
as it does
for git.

Those can't be effectively migrated to fossil, which will display the
content hash of the
file being rendered as the URI.

As for the HTML schema for marking up code, it's also a de-facto standard.
with pygments, if I recall correctly and used, with some variation, by all
the major syntax

If the other proposal is just whatever highlights.js emits, I'm sure we'll
find that they are
somewhere between similar and identical.
fossil-users mailing list

Reply via email to