holden said:
>   It seems like you're trying to pick a fight

nope.  just sharing information.  got any?


>   The article you post is irrelevant to current XML-based plans for PG.

well, i guess that's a matter of opinion.

i think it is relevant, in the sense that
it talks about a bunch of much-hyped
"solutions" which have not materialized,
and now might _never_ come to fruition,
including some that are counted on here.


>   The whole point of the article is that direct delivery of XML to users
>   with stylesheets has not yet happened.

that's one of those "solutions", yes, but just one...


>   However, from what I've heard about current PG uses of XML,
>   they tend towards using XML as a master format for storage

well yes, and as simon points out,
that is a "fallback" position from
the one that was originally staked,
which was the serving of x.m.l. files.

but even this fallback rings hollow here,
since the position that x.m.l. is needed
for _conversion_to_multiple_formats_
was always a tenuous one, in the sense
that many entities out there are already
doing mass conversion of p.g. e-texts,
even though they aren't in x.m.l. format.

further, the x.s.l.t. methodology that
has always been the crucial linchpin in
the "strategy" of x.m.l. advocates here
is one of the ones that simon relegates
to the past-tense.  i find that interesting.

and surely the examples of it that we have
seen so far have shown it is badly lacking.

add to the equation now that i'm showing,
with real example-books, that z.m.l. can
convert to multiple formats quite easily,
on the user's desktop, via button-clicks,
and the question becomes hard to avoid:
what's the reason to apply heavy markup?

don't get me wrong, i'm sure the hypesters
will be able to invent one, they are creative
that way, it's just that i think history should
warn us to take these with a grain of salt...


>   On a slight side note, I don't
>   see the point of your aggressive posts

first, my posts are not "aggressive".

but if you _choose_ to interpret them
that way, then i don't see _your_ point.
wouldn't it be better just to skip them?
why even bother reading them, holden?
(let alone replying to them?)

i mean, seriously, i could just as easily
interpret _your_ posts as ad hominem,
since you've said straight out that i am
"trying to pick a fight" with "aggressive posts".

but going down that road wouldn't be too
productive, so i consciously choose not to;
instead i have responded to your post with
rebuttals that are on-topic and on-point,
without diverting to attack your character.

if you want a mud-fight or a flame-war,
well i've shown i can do those things too;
but why not friendly conversation instead?

and don't get me wrong, i don't mean to be
disingenuous here, because i fully understand
that it's not pleasant to be on the losing side of
a "you were wrong" comment.  but that's the risk
you take when you take a stand and you're wrong.
but when someone is wrong, and you say they are
wrong, that doesn't mean it's an "aggressive" post.


>   Everybody here should be (is?) aiming
>   towards the furthering of PG's goals.

well yes, i believe that we all agree on that.
the next issue is, "how do we obtain that?"

on _that_ question, there is disagreement,
which has been longstanding, and ugly too.

and as much as some people might like to
sweep this disagreement under the carpet,
and have people forget what they said since
things aren't looking too swell for their side,
the disagreement still runs deep, and wide...

meanwhile, little progress is being made
on "the goals of p.g." that we all agree on...

how long does t.e.i./x.m.l./whatever remain
on the table as "the official plan" before it's
required to show some action and results?
how are "the goals of p.g." being served?

those are questions i think you all should be
asking yourselves.  as for me, i'll just keep on
plugging away with my little experiments, and
maybe someday you'll realize that z.m.l. is best.


>   If whatever format you choose
>   happens to preferred in the long run,
>   that's not a reason for gloating.

well, i certainly will not be "gloating",
because i don't see much point in that.

however, it _is_ important to keep in mind
whose predictions were wrong, and right,
and whose credibility was badly shredded,
for future reference...

you know, fool me once, your fault,
but fool me twice, my fault, right?

so surely you can't mind if we evaluate
those matters quite closely, can you?

besides, in retrospect, my methodologies
will be so _obvious_ that no one will even
consider their "invention" to be _special_;
that it was "controversial" will be laughable.

luckily, i'll be able to point to lots and lots of
messages that people posted to _this_ listserve
as solid evidence that some people didn't get it.

(which is why i spent so much time discussing it!
y'all would have been a lot smarter to _fold_ your
losing hand much earlier in this poker-game than
you did, instead of constantly raising your bets...)


>   The other people on this list are merely
>   trying to help PG as much as we all hope you are.

and i give them full credit on the variable of "trying".

that doesn't mean i'm gonna start paying attention
to what they say they see in their crystal ball though,
because we've come to learn that it's badly cracked...

-bowerbird