Emlyn wrote:
> a primitive WYZIWYG html editor that he built himself.
Umm, that's WY_S_IWIG.
Ironic that one of your listed "similar" things (all the popular M$
apps, evidently, lumped together) yield files you *really* don't want to
manipulate by hand.
I'd say the closest direct parallel to HTML in the text-processing field
is probably ROFF/NROFF/TROFF and variants, and you'll notice what a huge
market share they've garnered today. :)
> The goals of machine readability, etc, etc, of XML are laudable. How long do
> you reckon they'll last in the face of big commercial interests & a zillion
> (well, many million) users of various flavours, with their own ideas about
> how they want to use this thing called the web?
I can predict one thing about the future of the Web. It will continue to
suck, but not quite as much as not having it.
I'm not real fond of gravy, either (feh!). :)
OTOH, nobody (=="not enough bodies") so far seems to have wanted
xanalogical storage very badly, and that's pretty much "soup". People
have gotten used to herding piles of named files around, even though
that's like calling a houseful of mice by name.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT