Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:45:14 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
At 09:47 +0000 1998/12/16, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
>hans aberg writes:
>
>> Well, speaking of an _authoring_ language, one would expect [...]
>>
>> So from this point of view, HTML and PDF and DVI are incomplete.
>
>umm, in iso 8613[*] terms, pdf and dvi are `final forms', the output
>of a formatting process. pace various people's odd ideas, they are
>not (as a practical proposition) intended to be edited. as authoring
>languages they are complete crocks (though people do do daft things: i
>have a friend who regularly writes bits of exam papers in
>postscript...).
Has anybody said anything different?
>html is a `revisable form'. indeed, some people (such as i, who have
>no other tools than emacs) author in it[*]. but it's an awful
>authoring language, even with the sorts of dances i can persuade emacs
>to do for me....
Right.
>however, html _does_ in principle provide an awful lot of what one
>might like. it fails in its lack of stable extensibility ... which is
>what this crazy argument started from (but, shock horror, in terms of
>latex's stability and extensibility).
Right again: People use HTML as an authoring language, in the lack of the
real thing.
Hans Aberg
* Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
* Home Page: <http://www.matematik.su.se/~haberg/>
* AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>
|
|
|