chris rowley wrote:

> Sebastian Rahtz wrote --
>
> > DSSSL, an ISO standard developed after a decade of work...
>
> Now why does immediately bring to my mind the legendary Algol68
> standard ...

algol68 was fine; compiler technology at the time wasn't.  almost all
my mainframe programming from about 1970 on was in algol68, and i came
to like it very well.  but the compiler could only manage a subset of
the language.

dsssl is a different kettle of fish.  i knew about the project pretty
soon after i first started in standardisation, and didn't see even a
dis until after my last ever iso meeting 5 years ago.  i guess it was
more than 10 years' work end to end.  nowadays, such a project would
have been chopped long before finishing, no question.  i really don't
understand how they got away with it even under the old dispensation.

> I must be getting (even more) old and cynical?

i'll agree with the first (don't we all? -- groan), but the second ...
well, trying to keep latex3 going at all must have an (ahem)
interesting effect on all your psyches.  it's tim murphy's capital T
that bothers me...

r