Re: ConLang Journal

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:26:05PM -0400, Paul Edson wrote:
> I fear that a "lowest common denominator" needs to be
> established somewhere, and it seems that plaintext is
> awfully limiting in terms of format--simple font
> distinctions can clarify interlinear translation or example
> passages immensely. Assuming that the volume isn't
> particularly high (and I can't imagine it would be!), I
> could probably manage to do the basics for converting
> plaintext to RTF or HTML (indents for examples, font
> contrasts as needed, etc...) and pass the results on to
> Christophe.
[snip]

I don't mind writing HTML by hand. I do it all the time. It *is* plaintext
in its underlying representation, so that is not a barrier for me. The
problem with RTF is that it has a different encoding from plaintext, and
hence not supported by the tools I have. If plaintext is too "limited" for
people's tastes, let's go for HTML, which is a universally accepted
Internet standard.


T

--
Gone Chopin. Bach in a minuet.

Replies