2006/1/20, matthew hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Er, I don't know about that. There are about 1,783 different > > "structured text" formats out there, and ReST doesn't seem to be a > > particularly great one. > > With the requirement is that the plain text / source text is usable/ > presentable on it's own. ie. that it requires almost nothing > in the way of tags; and structure is inferred from common > conventions in the text.
There's a conflict between readability and writability in this case; you _have_ to make some compromise. > Emacs can help with this sort of thing anyway, can't it? Sure, but a format that's only usable in practice with specialized editors is not much of a step above xml.... -Miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
