Textualize/textual

Prefer upstream unless you specifically need this fork for local experimentation or repository ownership. The fork adds no visible capabilities, is 30 commits behind, and looks like a low-differentiation maintenance fork.

Prefer upstream unless you specifically need the fork's selection and widget-behavior changes. This fork is too stale and too divergent to be a low-risk drop-in replacement.

Choose this fork only if you need its specific historical UI behavior or custom tree filtering work. For new development, current upstream is the better default because this fork is stale and substantially behind.

Prefer upstream Textual unless you specifically need this older snapshot. This fork does not appear to add capabilities, and its main downside is lagging behind recent upstream fixes and refinements.

Choose this fork only if you need its specific behavior changes and are prepared to maintain a large divergence. For most adopters who want a stable, current Textual base, upstream is the safer choice.

Choose this fork only if you need the older Textual codebase as-is. For new work, upstream is the better default because this fork is materially behind and appears to lag on browser support and later framework improvements.

Prefer the fork only if you need its older behavior or are intentionally maintaining a legacy branch. For new work or active applications, upstream Textual is the better choice because this fork is severely stale and materially diverged.

Choose the fork only if you need the historical Rich-based codebase or are continuing an existing legacy project. For new adopters, upstream Textual is the clear choice: this fork is stale, far behind, and appears to have lost much of the modern framework surface rather than extending it.

Prefer upstream Textual unless you specifically need this exact fork state; it adds no visible capabilities and appears to lag behind recent upstream work.