Hi Lee, True a encoding for a master format does not need be created! JUST set set of conventions that must be adhered to in order to produce the desired output. ZML and RST are that restrictive by nature as they do not contain that much extra information! Yet, they do many aspects which are requested. Heavy Markup on the other hand is to broad that it is easy to use something thhat does not convert well to different devices. That is why I purport using a heavy markup like language to facilitate the task. regards Keith Am 28.02.2011 um 01:06 schrieb Lee Passey:
On 2/26/2011 1:13 PM, Keith J. Schultz wrote:
Hi John,
Am 26.02.2011 um 00:22 schrieb John Redmond:
[snip]
I think that you are agreeing with me. And note that one option is to back-convert to prettified text, or even zml. And the XML can be used to generate other content, like a TOC and endnotes.
I do not see the point in using a master format and then converting to to a another format that is not one of a intended reader device!
I agree, but in this case the proposed conversion /is/ for an intended reader device. BowerBird has promised us reader software (technically called a 'User Agent') which will use z.m.l. as a native format Real Soon Now, and prettified text is the native format for those using the DEC VT-100 "smart terminal."
I think that everyone who is in favor of a master format would agree that transformations to Yet Another Master Format is wasted effort -- which is perhaps one of the reasons that there is so much acrimonious debate over what that master format should be.