Russ Allbery wrote:
> I've fiddled with this before and can do text to HTML; the rest is just a
> question of picking different backends and shouldn't be *too* hard. All
> the heuristics for parsing text are inherently fragile, but if you follow
> a standard text formatting style, it works reaso
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 03:59:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > My own personal favourite for archival format would be to stick with POD
> > until and unless we can cons up something even Plainer than POD. I've
> > got this dream that someday we'll b
Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My own personal favourite for archival format would be to stick with POD
> until and unless we can cons up something even Plainer than POD. I've
> got this dream that someday we'll be able to take something --- perhaps
> based on Damian's Text::Autoforma
Bennett Todd writes:
> Would you accept a restatement of: as long as whatever it is can be
> translated into a common format, we can work with it, and the
> composition of the actual words is far more important than niggling
> over choices in preferred markup style?
Sure, but that begs the questi
2000-12-05-13:02:56 Nathan Torkington:
> I say that the person who *does* the work deserves the right to
> choose what format it is in. So long as we can make navigable
> webpages out of it, that person can write on a Commodore 64 for
> all I care.
Would you accept a restatement of: as long as wh
