| 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. [Added emphasis]
| The point must be to define a proper language, not to measure languages by
| the size of their definition and supporting code.
| 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",
Objection! You can twist your own words around as you wish, but keep your
hands off mine, please. I argued against the _size_ limitation of the
present richtext specification, which is so small as to say almost nothing.
I didn't argue against an "understandable and useful [language] on its own
merits", for christ's sake.
| Isn't this the same general mentality that produced another wonderful
| ISO standard, PHIGS?
| Frustrated up to my eyeballs by SGML on another project,
The principle of guilt by association makes it so simple to judge things,
doesn't it, Marc?
Thanks for your valuable input.
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,