I think you are misunderstanding what one should document in the fossil wiki. Not at all end user documentation. The documentation I put there is design documentation, application goals/requirements, etc... End user documentation is something totally different that is not at all contained in the Fossil wiki. For me, the Fossil wiki really isn't even of interest to non-developers (users) in any way. My public project page will be in some other format, most likely a CMS system with news, blog, forums, etc... Documentation will be in static HTML most likely that is then displayed in an HTML viewer of a GUI application or hosted on a website with hooks into a web application. The fossil wiki is for developers documenting the development process for me. That's what I use the Fossil wiki for.
Jeremy -------------------------------------------------- From: "Will Duquette" <w...@wjduquette.com> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 10:36 AM To: <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] The case for Markdown (yes, I rtfm) > My two cents on all of this: regardless of what wiki syntax is used, > the Fossil Wiki is a lousy way to do your software documentation. You > write your software. Ultimately, you deliver your software. Then you > want to deliver your documentation *with* your software...and it's in > a wiki tied to your CM repository, and you've got a problem. > > The Fossil wiki is a great way to easily create your project's web > pages: development news, installation instructions, download pages, > FAQs, and the like. It's great for meta-documentation, and for > communication among the development team. Use it for more than that > and you're asking for trouble. > > > On Nov 29, 2009, at 6:49 AM, Jeremy Cowgar wrote: > >> 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > will -at- wjduquette.com | Catch our weblog, > http://foothills.wjduquette.com/blog | The View from the Foothills > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
