Re: your mail

["David C. Mason" <dcm redhat com>]

"Tuomas J. Lukka" <lukka@fas.harvard.edu> writes:

> > 
> > I don't mean this as a flame, but if people spent as much time working
> > on parsers and other free sgml tools as they do conversion tools it
> > could be better than the commercial sgml offerings - and easier than
> > any other mark-ups.
> 
> Wait, what do you mean? I was criticizing the format (i.e. <para> etc),
> not the tools. And not suggesting a conversion tool but actually a different
> kind of SGML editor, i.e. one that 1. takes SGML and converts it into 
> easily editable ASCII format, 2. takes that ASCII edited and converts it
> back into SGML, *not destroying the original formatting*.
> 
> So does this not qualify under a free sgml tool?

What I mean is the backends to the commercial sgml apps are MUCH better
than the free ones.

There needs to be high quality work on parsing before an
editor would ever be useful. I apologize if James Clark reads any of
these lists but Jade just isn't as good as it could be and there has to
be a Jade before there can be an editor.

The problem is, there aren't enough hackers who find working on such
tools exciting enough to contribute. Add to that the fact that Jade is
in C++ and we lose the interest of the majority of GNOME hackers.

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to be a criticism of your interest in
such a tool, I have an interest too, but we NEED a good system to
build on before that happens.

Regards,

Dave

-- 

          David Mason
        Red Hat AD Labs

        dcm@redhat.com