From: Peter_Constable@sil.org
Date: Wed Feb 05 2003 - 14:20:41 EST
On 02/05/2003 12:24:39 PM jameskass wrote:
>The advantages of using P14 tags (...equals lang IDs mark-up) is
>that runs of text could be tagged *in a standard fashion* and
>preserved in plain-text.
Sure, but why do we want to place so much demand on plain text when the
vast majority of content we interchange is in some form of marked-up or
rich text? Let's let plain text be that -- plain -- and look to the markup
conventions that we've invested so much in and that are working for us to
provide the kinds of thing that we designed markup for in the first place.
Besides, a "plain-text" file that begins and ends with p14 tags is a
marked-up file, whether someone calls it "plain text" or not. We have
little or no infrastructure for handling that form of markup, and a large
and increasing amount of infrastructure for handling the more typical forms
of markup.
I repeat, plain text remains legible without anything indicating which eng
(or whatever) may be preferred by the author, and (since the requirement
for plain text is legibility) therefore this is not really an argument for
using p14 language tags. IMO.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 05 2003 - 15:08:28 EST