Re: [sc-dev] [rfc] alternative documentation format, scwiki

[stefan kersten <steve@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2004-11-27 17:59:09 -0800, James McCartney wrote:
> >>It remains RTF so you can edit styled text directly and copy paste
> >>between other apps and open the files in other apps.
> >>There is no drop-in WYSIWYG editor for or any other markup format. And
> >>even if there was it would not be compatible with other apps on the
> >>Mac.
> >
> >these are valid points, but no show stoppers from my
> >pov. pasted markup can be converted on the fly,
> 
> no one is going to paste markup, they are going to paste RTF. RTF is 
> the styled text interchange format on the Mac.

RTF is markup, sort of. what i meant is that pasted RTF could
be converted on the fly.

> >don't get me wrong, i don't want to push an outlandish
> >solution for the pure fun of it, but i honestly think that
> >structured markup could make the documentation more
> >palleable on more platforms (WYSIWYM [2]). but if WYSIWYG
> >indeed is a requirement (is it?) we'll have to think of
> >something on linux ...
> >
> 
> OK. go ahead and implement it for both platforms. then we'll see how it 
> works and if it works well, then we can adopt it. If it does not then 
> not.

i know, i know. i just hoped there'd be an uproar along the
lines of 'yeah, let's do that! RTF sucks!'

seriously, the RTF editor is half finished; once it's working
i think i'll keep my hands from formatting languages.

> I don't want to spend time myself on this issue.

understandable.

<sk>