Hi, Yves Cloutier <yves.clout...@gmail.com> wrote: |Thanks for your comment.
It however wasn't real fun for i guess, but it is great that you don't mind. |Closing a inline formatting stack with a single closing bracket was a |design decision meant to reduce the noise added to running text. It's |meant to keep the running text more readable. For example: | |<bold><size +2><smallcaps>some text</smallcaps></size></bold> | |vs | |<bold, size +2, smallcaps<some text> | |or even the sugared version: | |<b, sc, +2<some text>. Even is nice :) Ya, i mean, ya, sure, being able to easily add-up properties for an enclosed range. |I'm not familar with SGML, but will have a look. Yep, thanks for refreshing me. Actually i think that the empty end tag </> was standard SGML, and that the <TAG/content/ syntax was an extension i used myself, i.e., "content" is possibly not allowed by SGML itself. Yet, honestly "<<>" doesn't thrill me. I could hardly grasp it in a lot of running text it would surely drive me up the wall. Really it may have something to do with psychology and the horizontal bias of the graphics you use, and the leading into different directions? I think <tag|text| or <tag/text/ would aid in reading, on the other hand. E.g., the |INDEX| syntax of Knuth i think was acceptible to see in running text, for me, even if used quite often. But any markup disturbs running text, it can't be helped. And then you either have to restrict yourself to a point where you could almost let it be (POD) or extend to something where using something real is possible better (rst/asciidoc/xy), even if that means you have to convert it to _real_ plain text for a normal user to graps. Just my one cent. --steffen
