keith said:
>   I would not call BB's idea or concepts BS.

so, is that what jim is saying now?  that's a laugh.
see if you can figure out exactly what he means...


>   They have their merit as you well say, below.

please please please do not take jim's word for it!
i disclaim him, loudly, as _any_ sort of a reference.

>   I agree doing references is a big pain.
>   The problem is that there is no sure way to get it right.
>   Some can be done semi-automatically.
>   Yet, most will have to been corrected.

i'm not sure what you're talking about here...

but i'm pretty sure that if i did, i would disagree.     :+)

Talking, about discussing things hypothetically.

but it's useless to talk about these things "abstractly".
you have to work with real texts, so you can _assess_
the accuracy of algorithms, using objective measures.

I will forgive you here, as I believe you do not have a formal 

education in Computer Science.

because "opinions" don't mean jack, or hold any water.

write code, or go home.  that's what it boils down to...

write code, or go home.

I am home and whether you believe me or not I think code!

99% of the time my code works out of the box.

An important paradigm in CS is think first, code later.

>   BB is trying to develop a minimal mark-up set.

not really.  my mark-up can be as extensive as needed.
anything your angle-brackets can do, so can my _zen_.
all i have to do is devise the methodology to perform it.

just, because you started out with small feature set?

Then using XML is light-mark-up then?

Or those features you have proposed are not a minimal ! 

Can be is hypothetical!

C'mon, you know better than play games with me!

regards

Keith.