On Fri, 23 Aug 1996 16:56:57 +0200 Eric Thomas said: >On Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:43:21 CDT Chris Barnes <[log in to unmask]> >said: > >>As you can see from my assumption above (since proven incorrect), I had >>assumed that the & was based on the old IBM Script language. > >But it is! And just what *exactly* do you think HTML is based on? What do >you think people used at CERN for text processing when the WWW was >designed? Actually, I think it looks closer to TeX than Script.... ;-) >>But the rest of the formatting apparently *is* based on the old >>IBM script (ie. the ".fo off, .eb"). Do we really need the >>*formatting* stuff? I don't think so. > >How are you going to conditionally include text without .BB/.EB? How can >you make the message fit within a certain number of columns in the face >of substitution of unknown length unless you do text flow? How are you >going to be able to put a table where you don't want text formatting >unless you have a way to do this? To make a long story short, if it isn't >needed then why does HTML support it and have it turned on by default, >just like LISTSERV? Ok, you've convinced me. We need formatting. But now I have a new suggestion: How about using HTML formatting commands instead of Script commands? :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Barnes (409) 846-3273 (home) [log in to unmask] (409) 845-8300 (work) http://helper.tamu.edu/STAFF/cbarnes/