BB said: "well, don't get too delighted. because a "true believer" in xml/tei will never see eye-to-eye with me long-term. :+) but yes, i saw some promise in your message last year, where you argued in favor of the use of light-markup... the thing is, you never answered my question about what the need is for a "heavy" format, if it is merely being generated from the "light" version to start with." We can continue to find something to agree about: Yes, your restyling of my HTML _does_ look better than mine, but primarily because you didn't use my off-the-shelf all-purpose ugly-dreadful CSS. Your (centering) treatment of the TOC is a style that I had tried and rejected (just because it didn't appeal), but these are small issues. Now the structure of the document comes from _my light markup_, with the very big qualification that, to generate the endnotes, I had to do a good deal of cutting and patching of the original text. In that respect, this was (or is) not a very typical case. So, where are we? We have used light markup, plus the patching, to structure the document. The markup _was_ light, because the style of document did not require anything more. Heavy markup? What if we have a more technical document that demands lists and tables? The markup _has_ to be heavier. Surely we can agree on that! So consider my "true belief" to be that a markup system, to be useful for a range of documents, _has_ to have some heavy options in the back cupboard. John Redmond