Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:16:46 CDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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/
|
|
|