On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 04:04:24PM -0500, Joshua Paine wrote: > On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 22:14 +0800, Michael Richter wrote: > > I think having the simple syntax we have now is fine, even if > > suboptimal compared to my poison (Markdown). > > But that's just it: any of the major wiki engines would be better. So > why not just use one? I'd rather write textile than fossil wiki. I > imagine most textile users would rather write markdown than fossil wiki. > > Just because we can't make everyone happy doesn't mean we have to make > almost everyone unhappy. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do not agree that because the most vocal express desire for a different wiki language, that "almost everyone unhappy" is accurate. I am quite content with fossil wiki language. I posit that many, if not most, are content. And, as I recall, there have been some posts here that show how you can add your own markup right into your own repositories, if that is your wish. I have used and configured many SCM systems over the years. Choose your alphabet soup - RCS, SCCS, PVS, ClearCase, SVN, CVS, git, mercurial, probably more that I have forgotten. fossil is the *only* one that I look forward to using each time. ~Michael > > (Not wanting to be ungrateful, though. I'm a happy fossil user, just not > very happy with the wiki markup situation.) > > -- > Joshua Paine > LetterBlock: Web applications built with joy > http://letterblock.com/ > 301-576-1920 > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- Michael McDaniel Portland, Oregon, USA http://trip.autosys.us _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
