Joachim Schrod writes:
> As an authoring language, XML is inadequate beyond recognition. It's
> reasonably good for exchange of data and well suited for archiving
> documents, but not made for human consumption.
Between 1985 and 1999 I wrote LaTeX practically every day of my
life. Since 1999 I have written XML practically every day. I barely
notice the extra characters, and in general my day to day authoring is
more satisyfying. No, I am not joking at all.
> still psgmls on (X)Emacs is one of the best authoring environments
> around; that's a shame.
why is it a shame? its an excellent editor. tried epcEdit :-}
> and all showed that the hype that's spread by XML fanatics isn't worth
> the paper it's printed on (or the disk space it's stored in). I'll
> tell you, these projects were more than depressing...
possibly, possibly not. but I bet we can both agree that they are more
successful than the attempts to spread LaTeX in the `real' world!
In a moment, Frank will shout at me in private for getting off the
subject of the list, and complain in public that no-one takes the L3
research seriously enough.
Sebastian "prescient" Rahtz