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