If you look into a lot of the wiki's, they see the problem as well and many devs have went together to start standardizing on a format, Creole being one of them. Every wiki has their own special format but the formats that I have mentioned are formats that are creating a standard, cross-wiki, cross text formatting domain as well. Creole, Markdown and Textile are all used for all sorts of document preparation means, not just 1 wiki system.
Further, simple bullet lists exist but not nested, nor numeric lists of which I gave the example. Further, nor HTML. Headers, Lists, Quotes, Images, Tables, Local Links, Paragraph Alignment, Sub/Super Script and many more items are not supported except by verbose HTML. All of which are important to really document a project. Now... if the wiki is not to document the project of what use is it? Sure, it can document simple processes with a limited amount of formatting but Fossil is already so nice of a product why not make it a complete product? Sure, I can use a different wiki engine but then I loose the ability for distributed wiki edits and the easy of deployment that is so powerful of Fossil. Jeremy -------------------------------------------------- From: "Twylite" <twyl...@crypt.co.za> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:25 AM To: <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Wiki Formatting? > First, Fossil's markup (http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/wiki_rules) has > simple block-level constructs for paragraphs, lists and hyperlinks, with > HTML for everything else. This means you already get the "easier" > syntax you referred to. > > Second your statistics and assumptions are horribly wrong. Wiki engine > popularity is notoriously hard to measure, but there are a couple of > well-regarded resources, such as > http://www.wikicreole.org/wiki/WikiPopularity and > http://c2.c2.com/cgi/wiki?TopTenWikiEngines. There have also been a > couple of in-depth market share surveys, e.g. Water & Stone > (http://www.waterandstone.com/downloads/2008OpenSourceCMSMarketSurvey.pdf). > > > If you include content management systems, then 80% of the market is > represented by Joomla!, WordPress, Drupal and PHP-Nuke. They all use > HTML as their native markup for content. BBCode is popular in > conjunction with PHP-Nuke, and although there are extensions for > Wiki-type markup in Joomla! and Drupal they are not popular (as in: not > widely deployed). > > In the domain of Wiki engines only, MediaWiki is without question the > leader in terms of the likelihood of interacting with it (i.e. of all > Wikis, you are most likely to have to use MediaWiki syntax). MediaWiki > does not support CREOLE, nor textile nor markdown. It supports a broad > subset of HTML for markup beyond simple block and element formatting. > > Other popular / widely used Wiki engines include DokuWiki, Twiki, > PhpWiki, and MoinMoin. Of these none support CREOLE (DokuWiki and TWiki > can by plugin), only DokuWiki supports Markdown (by plugin), and TWiki / > DokuWiki support textile (by plugin). All except DokuWiki support (at > least a subset of) HTML. > > The native Wiki syntax of all of these wikis are different: they all > have different markup for internal & external links, headlines, > bold/italics/underline, images, bulleted and numbered lists. > > In the world of development tools with Wiki support, Trac seems to be > the leader (although I don't have definitive statistics on that). Trac > supports something like MoinMoin syntax, but not quite. > > Using similar methodologies to those used to derive the market shares > above, it is quite easy to show that Markdown, Textile and > reStructuredText have such tiny market share (except in certain niche > markets) that they don't even start the race. Perl's POD is more widely > used than any of them, as is BBCode. > > In short there are only a handful of popular Wiki syntaxes, if you have > really REALLY big hands. And markdown, textile, and creole are not > among them. > > Regards, > Twylite > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
