Ted, you're still confusing the IBM/Waterloo implementation with GML itself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Generalized_Markup_Language#Syntax-- no dot commands. Whatever, you're being deliberately obtuse, I'm done.
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Ted MacNEIL <[email protected]> wrote: > >Ted: The GML definition does not include the dot-commands of Script. > > A. You're wrong. > > >You're confusing how it was implemented with the definition. > > B. You're wrong. > > They're both usable in the same document. > > There is nothing in the definition that excludes the base Script commands. > > I had an old hanbook, circa 1985, that had everything (Script and GML) in > it. > It was published by IBM, and it was just the command inventory. > > I dumped it when I started using Word to write all my documents. > > And, you were correct about one thing! > You are nitpicking. > > - > I'm a SuperHero with neither powers, nor motivation! > SHAZAM! > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
