On Wed, 05 May 2010 16:32:29 +0200 >>>>>> "renework" == renework wrote:
renework> You get into trouble if it is contained in two wiki pages. renework> Basically your are better of to write two markdown files and renework> a Makefile. Which you can do in Darcs anyway. Well, the more I think about it, it seems that it's better to forget about fossil's wiki as solution for documentation and use it only according to the DRH's intention. :-) renework> I looked up markdown and it is a 35Kb perl source file. But renework> you are in luck there is a c implementation renework> http://www.pell.portland.or.us/~orc/Code/discount/ renework> Now find someone to incorporate it into fossil. Still, it won't be accepted in the core, so better to forget about it. renework> You do understand that other users have there own preferences renework> for markup implementations and they all claim that theirs is renework> the best and most standard? Sure. I understand, but I posted since this thread is labelled as: "The case for Markdown". ;) renework> my advice would be to use DARCS, write your user manual and renework> keep the files in DARCS and use pandoc to your harts renework> content. There is much work involved with what you want and renework> it won't happen overnight if ever. I understand your suggestion to write user-manual with markdown and use pandoc, but why are you suggesting to use darcs instead of fossil as scm? Maybe there are too many users already? :-D Well, it is a topic for a new post... Sincerely, Gour -- Gour | Hlapicina, Croatia | GPG key: F96FF5F6 ----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
