Erik Naggum writes:
| 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.
Isn't this the same general mentality that produced another wonderful
ISO standard, PHIGS?
If the task of creating something that is understandable and useful on
its own merits (by a self-professed SGML expert, no less) is "futile",
then...... aw hell, the home viewers can make their own snide comments
here.
Frustrated up to my eyeballs by SGML on another project,
Marc
--
Marc Andreessen
Software Development Group
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
marca(_at_)ncsa(_dot_)uiuc(_dot_)edu