don said:
I would like someone to try training someone to use a subset of HTML markup, and use it properly, and see how it works.
does the person know any .html to begin with?
Even with a subset, there are lots of ways of applying that subset improperly, and having the display view look just fine on a PC.
yes, that's a huge part of the problem with .html... and it's worse if the person knew any .html before.
I suspect users will be unable to avoid the temptation to tell themselves that "if it looks right, it's right,",
interesting that you call that a "temptation"...
especially in cases where the match between the markup and the structure of the text is unclear or complex.
i guess you're saying that in such cases, it's not gonna be obvious "it looks right". *** your problem, in _my_ opinion, is that you are fighting against human nature, instead of using it to your _advantage_. my system adopts as a primary rule that "if it _looks_ right, it _is_ right". and, conversely, "if it doesn't look right, you need to change your input so it will." -bowerbird
On 10/26/2012 3:57 PM, Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
my system adopts as a primary rule that "if it _looks_ right, it _is_ right".
It's statements like this that just drive me crazy. "If it /looks/ right", then there are probably 5 times the number of people who think it looks wrong as who think it looks right. There's Haines "look right," there's Perathoner "look right," there's Widger "look right," there's BowerBird "look right," and there's Adcock "look right." And none of them looks as good as /Passey/ "look right." Why is it so hard to recognize other people's views, and accept the fact that there is no such thing as "looks right," there is only "is right?" And why is there so little willingness to compromise so we can all get what we want? The right file format should make a clear distinction between the text, and how the text looks, and should allow me to /easily/ apply any arbitrary presentation to that text.
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Lee Passey wrote:
It's statements like this that just drive me crazy.
"If it /looks/ right", then there are probably 5 times the number of people who think it looks wrong as who think it looks right. There's Haines "look right," there's Perathoner "look right," there's Widger "look right," there's BowerBird "look right," and there's Adcock "look right." And none of them looks as good as /Passey/ "look right."
Oh, and don't forget Sly "look right". I don't speak up about it here very often, but it is extremely important... (to me anyway) <g> --Andrew
Sorry, but I disagree. For example, if you actually open one or more paper books, you will find that there are basically two and only two ways in common usage to format a paragraph, neither of which is used in many of the books which PG distributes. Don't confuse mere technical incompetence with the expression of personal taste.
The right file format should make a clear distinction between the text, and how the text looks, and should allow me to /easily/ apply any arbitrary presentation to that text.
I think at least some of us who have done some books have reached the conclusion that authors and publishers of paper books do not magically conform their publishing practices neatly into a finite number of definitive categories to which definitive markup could be applied, and even if they did there are too many categories for volunteers to get it all "right," and/or to care that they get it all "right" and/or that any committee of 12 could ever agree upon. We can't even agree on what a "paragraph" is or isn't for god's sake, or what it should look like. DocBook for example has almost 400 tags, as does TEI. Find me one book from a famous author where the first edition is poorly formatted. Yes many first editions have lousy illustrations. But bad formatting? Nope. I could probably be happy with little more than half a dozen tags -- if they were actually well-supported.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Lee Passey <lee@passkeysoft.com> wrote:
"If it /looks/ right", then there are probably 5 times the number of people who think it looks wrong as who think it looks right. There's Haines "look right," there's Perathoner "look right," there's Widger "look right," there's BowerBird "look right," and there's Adcock "look right." And none of them looks as good as /Passey/ "look right."
Correction: none look as good *to Passey* as /Passey/ "look right." -- Mjit RaindancerStahl answerwitch@gmail.com
participants (5)
-
Andrew Sly -
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
James Adcock -
Lee Passey -
Mjit RaindancerStahl