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/>