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@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...