> >I'm assuming any publishing. Web, paper, audio, etc. In > fact, the more > >media formats you publishg to, the MORE important it is to > retain only > >structural markup and not stylistic markup. > > You also wrote: > > >I thought I made that clear. If your requirement is for only one > delivery >platform/format, than my points are all moot. > > Then you wrote: > > >However, if at any point the content may be repurposed for a > different > >format, then arbitrary style markup for one medium gets in the way. > > I complete - So according to you better do it now then later right :) > This is the catch isn't it?
*What's* the catch? Do *what* now rather than later? I'm sorry, Nuno, but your replies are becoming increasingly vague to me (which could be my fault as much as yours). I'm not even really sure if we are disagreeing anymore. ;o) BTW, I'm not a CMS vendor. Just a customer. To go back to the original debate, I was just disagreeing with the argument that a CMSs need to take huge strides in interpreting ramdomly styles and marked up content to appease the perceived needs of a ramdon group of writers who insists on wanting to style their content how they see fit vs. structurally. I think our conversation has shot out into some odd tangental realm. > PS: I'm really sorry for this not so political email but this > is what I > felt compelled to say. I've never been a fan of political correctness in email forums as long as there isn't name calling. I love a good debate. ;o) -Darrel -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
