john redmond said:

I am delighted to say that I _agree_ with BB!

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. the light version will be easier to create, easier to store, easier to edit, easier to maintain, and easier to update... and if we just use that, there's no need to even bother with the hassle of even generating the "heavy" format. you want to start with something clean, make it dirty by obscuring it with a lot of heavy markup, and then strip away the markup later to create something clean. isn't it bloody obvious that that's going to be inefficient? *** here's an example... i took your ivanhoe .html, and slapped my c.s.s. on it... i think my version looks a lot more "pretty" than yours:

http://z-m-l.com/misc/ivanhoe-restyle.htm

but that's really beside the point. our underlying markup is pretty close... the c.s.s. is just the lipstick on the pig... but why should volunteers go through all the hassles of doing your heavy markup, when they can get results that are just as pretty (or even more pretty) with light markup? and your .pdf isn't even close to being as pretty as mine. and i'll be spitting out .mobi versions and .epub versions that will also be just as pretty as yours, probably more so. and i'll be doing it with files that are easier to create and easier to maintain, store, edit, and update, which means we don't need someone with "special knowledge" to do it. because those people end up being obstacles to progress, because they want to keep on holding on to their power... and don't even let me get started on the _functionality_ of our different versions. a pretty face is nice, and all, but i'm also interested in creating _powerful_ e-books, ones that stretch what we're able to do with the content. that's why i want my text free and clear, without being weighed down by the ponderous constraints of markup. *** so let me just ask you one more question here now... how many other people -- from here -- have looked at your work as closely as i have, as demonstrated by my restyling of your .html? my guess is that no one has... i would _love_ to find out that i was wrong about that. so if anyone has studied it, please do let us know, ok? it's easy to say, "oh yeah, that's great, go ahead and do it", and then pat you on the back and send you out the door... so tell us, john, how many people from here have done that? yet i take the time and show you the respect to _examine_ your work, closely, and yet you say _i_ was "patronizing"? maybe that word means something different in australia... -bowerbird