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