i've got responses in the hopper to
jeroen, jon, stephen, karl, and scott.
(being a troll is hard work,
but somebody's gotta do it;
and god gave me the looks.) ;+)
but i'll save all those until monday,
give everyone some time to reflect,
rest, maybe write their own post...
but my bottom-line summary is this:
1) z.m.l. is a fantastic format for users,
in the hands of an intelligent viewer-app;
2) z.m.l. can be a great master-format,
as it's easy to create and maintain; and
3) though z.m.l. will create other formats,
people will prefer z.m.l., due to the viewer.
doubt it? then join the beta-test,
and tear my little baby to shreds...
zml_talk-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com
oh, i wrote a reply to josh too.
that one i'll save until tuesday...
or wednesday... or next month... :+)
just one thing before i go, so i can give
stephen the weekend to get a head-start...
stephen said:
> In a plain text file, we do make some effort to
> distinguish different elements of a work:
> quotations are indented, headings in UPPER CASE and
> centered, etc. But any kind of complexity in the work
> tends quickly to make that unworkable.
my findings are that you are _incorrect_ in that assessment.
i don't believe you can show me many e-texts from the library
that i cannot format unequivocally using zen markup language.
the figure i usually give is 3%, which now is 420+ e-texts,
but i'll be surprised if the number you can find gets that high.
frankly, i don't think you'll be able to find more than a few...
but you are welcome to try...
dig up a list (of 20-40?) e-texts from the library
that you think can not be handled with my z.m.l.,
and i'll take a look at them and see if you're right...
give it your best shot...
(if anyone wants to help stephen out with some pointers to
some particularly difficult e-texts, send him a backchannel!)
***
have a nice weekend, everyone!
-bowerbird
p.s. i'm still wondering if name-calling
and personal attacks are condoned here...
