Re: HTML better for small PDAs

["Robert G. Ferrell" <root at rgfsparc.cr.usgs.gov>]

>Actually, it *is* a valid argument - consider that hieroglyphs were
>unreadable until they found the Rosetta Stone.  The media lasted, but the
>ability to parse didn't.

If we're going to stray onto the treacherous ice of logic here, 
then I feel constrained to point out that ASCII, XML, and so 
on are merely ways of formatting characters, not languages 
in and of themselves.  The clay tablet vs paper comparison really 
isn't applicable either, because the basic storage and display media 
do not change in our example, regardless of which format we adopt. 
A more precise analogy would be something along the lines of 
'shall we use ink, paint, chisels, or chalk?'  I'm afraid that even 
this construct isn't particularly useful in our context.  

There are times when analogies can shine a bright light on a dark 
debate, but they may also be the last refuge of the obfuscator.  

I say ASCII source documents are fine; if someone wants to convert their 
personal copies of the docs into XML, PDF, HTML, or Morse Code, they're 
perfectly welcome to do so.

Cheers,

RGF

Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP
========================================
 Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.
========================================