Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 09:40-0500 From: John C. Mallery <JCMa@wilson.ai.mit.edu> Subject: Re: To: Michael Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: HTML discussion list <email@example.com> In-Reply-To: <MICHAELJ.firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <19941212144007.9.JCMA@jefferson.ai.mit.edu> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 09:05 EST From: email@example.com (Michael Johnson) >People should not be writing html; programs should. Excuse me? That's a load of hooey if I ever heard one. No WYSIWYG editors? Microsoft is coming..... >Lowering abstraction just makes the language harder to parse recursively. Hardly worth expending to much energy here; I've got my own abstractions so whatever level of empircism is wedged into the standards will never get in my way. Overloading is a mistake just as much as underloading. What you want is the correct mix that minmizes both the number of tags and the number of parameters. Of course, if you work this one out, you have a general theory of abstraction -- which is probably more than anyone else has. The reason for making recursive parsing easy is so you can use the parse structure as the representation in an editor.