john redmond said:
>   The markup _was_ light, because the style of
>   document did not require anything more.

right.  that's why it was not a good example text.
1.1 megabytes of mostly just plain paragraphs...
that doesn't do anybody much good, not really...

this is why a good developer makes a test-suite.
i've had mine up for well over 5 years already...

>   http://www.z-m-l.com/go/test-suite.zml

36k, and it includes almost everything one can
expect to encounter in the p.g. library e-books.


>   Heavy markup? What if we have
>   a more technical document
>   that demands lists and tables?

what if we do?  lists and tables are not hard...

neither are footnotes/endnotes, providing that
you've prepared the master-text-file correctly.
(and even if you haven't, it's not _that_ hard.)


>   The markup _has_ to be heavier.

no, it doesn't.


>   Surely we can agree on that!

no, we can't.  that's the crux of disagreement!

a light-markup perspective keeps the markup
nice and simple, and makes the _programming_
that interprets that markup more sophisticated.

this is the major failing of the file-format lovers,
including the "true believers" in x.m.l. and t.e.i.

they want to put all the complexity in the format.
and then they just expect that the programmers
will make sense of their obtuse complications...

but i come at things from the opposite direction,
where the programmer provides the solution and
devises a file-format that facilitates that solution.

-bowerbird
_______________________________________________
gutvol-d mailing list
gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org
http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d