On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:

> Chuck Robey writes:
>  > Troff (or groff, actually) is still being used to write books.  That's
>  > too bad, 
> 
> why is that bad? what is wrong with using a high-quality, flexible,
> stable tool for the job?

Oh, I find nothing wrong with the tool, Sebastian, but I wish there
could be a standard markup to be used with such a tool, so that the
sources could be standardized.

*authors*, not even editors, use troff ... if it is that simple, why
cannot W3C make a markup system that is simple enough to describe it?

> 
> sebastian
> 
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> 

----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Chuck Robey                 | Interests include any kind of voice or data 
chuckr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx       | communications topic, C programming, and Unix.
213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1  |
Greenbelt, MD 20770         | I run picnic and jaunt, both FreeBSD-current.
(301) 220-2114              | 
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------






 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list