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/