Re your request:
| Perhaps you, as an SGML expert, would care to produce a simple
| definition (or even a concrete example) for a richtext-like language
| which is of similar size (definition and code) and capability as the
| current richtext, and which is SGML compatible, but which doesn't
| require extensive knowledge of SGML to understand or implement? Then
| perhaps I and others could see what kinds of changes you are proposing.
To force a new specification of an SGML-conformant language to the size
limits of richtext in RFC 1341 is an exercise in futility. I refuse to
waste my time to play games under such conditions.
The point must be to define a proper language, not to measure languages by
the size of their definition and supporting code.
I also vehemently disagree with your assessment of simplicity. RFC 822 is
_not_ simple to implement correctly. Neither is MIME body parts. We must
endeavor to make things as simple as possible, and not simpler.
I urge people to think in terms of correctness, and let simplicity follow
from elegance in design, rather than hold simplicity as an a priori design
Erik Naggum ISO 8879 SGML +47 295 0313
Oslo, Norway ISO 10744 HyTime Watch this ^ space
<erik(_at_)naggum(_dot_)no> ISO 9899 C Memento,
<SGML(_at_)ifi(_dot_)uio(_dot_)no> ISO 10646 UCS Memento,