Not at all as Markdown, Creole or Textile all look great as plain text. Those without the plugin will simply not have glorified HTML markup but they will still be able to participate. However, I only mentioned this option as some think proper wiki formatting is too much work. My real suggestion would be for fossil to adopt 1 major format as the format to use. Those that wish to use verbose HTML can still do so. Those that wish to have a nice formatting language that's easy to maintain/type/read/understand can use the formatting engine.
No one looses. I'm failing to see how such an addition is generating such a vocal attack by a few. It has been mentioned that there will be complaining and arguing to what format to choose and yet there has been none, only those who dislike a format making assumptions as to what will happen. Jeremy From: Michael Richter Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 9:36 AM To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org Subject: Re: [fossil-users] The case for Markdown (yes, I rtfm) And with this you lose the interoperability of Fossil repositories. Go team. 2009/11/29 Jeremy Cowgar <jer...@cowgar.com> For those that would like a real human formatting language it would be worth a dependency. For those that prefer to use HTML can simply not link in the library. #ifdef MARKDOWN #include <markdown.h> #endif ... #ifdef MARKDOWN output = ConvertMarkdown(rawText); #endif ... $ gcc -DMARKDOWN fossil.c -o fossil Pretty easy, eh? Now, that's an over simplification but not by much. Jeremy -------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric" <e...@deptj.eu> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 6:44 AM To: <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] The case for Markdown (yes, I rtfm) > The number of mails about this just proves that there is no right choice > for a new wiki markup. There are plenty of lightweight markup formats out > there (with their own enthusiastic followers) that haven't even been > mentioned here yet. If you want to do your project documentation a > particular way, then do it that way - as project files. The other problem > is introducing external dependencies for Fossil - have you noticed how few > there are? > > My vote (somebody else mentioned votes!) is to leave the Fossil wiki alone > (except for gradual improvement). > > > Eric > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
