Hello, on Saturday 11 March 2017 at 15:07, Mark Janssen wrote: > Recently I have been looking to use fossil as a backend for managing the > Tcl tip collection. > An obvious format for the new tip format would be markdown, but currently > the fossil markdown support is fairly limited (for example there are no > code blocks)
I never understood the appeal for code blocks, but if it's only that it's very easy to add to the existing implementation. However I would be very interested to know what other features it lacks, or how a single feature missing makes it "fairly limited". Don't get me wrong, I fully recognize the value of CommonMark, just not in features but rather in disambiguation and standardization. Regarding the compatibility, as long as everybody kept their markdown valid and non-contrieved, it should be completely transparent. People who have stuff *like [that* ][link] might see quite some change there. And a fair warning, if anyone really wants standard-compliant CommonMark, and not just a few extra features, don't bother with the existing implementation, it's architectually at odds with the choices made in CommonMark. Better scratch it and write/import something entirely different. Natacha _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
