Publishable or Published?

[Todd Walton]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:54:49 -0800 (PST), Bowerbird at aol.com
<Bowerbird at aol.com> wrote:
> todd said:
> >   Since when is HTML only for browsers?
> 
> if you want me to ask you "what other viewer-applications
> do people use to look at h.t.m.l.?", i'll be quite happy to do so.

I apologize.  No, actually, I didn't want you to ask that, though, in
truth, I knew the question was likely.  I was hoping though, that you
could supply your own examples.  I don't known particularly of
anything that uses HTML other than web browsers.  I've heard something
about creating PDF files with XSLT or some such.

My point was, as you say, philosophical.  Whether HTML is used only in
browsers or not, it *shouldn't* be, necessarily.  It's just markup. 
The point of "markup" is that all the information is right there in
the marked up file.  No "browser" needed.

> in that light, my next response would probably go something
> along the lines of "if you give people an .html-format file,
> the tool that they are most likely to choose to use to view it,
> lacking any instructions to the contrary, will be a browser..."

Right, but "lacking any instructions to the contrary".  A browser is
the default HTML viewer, but I could see it being used in other
applications that explicitly operate expecting HTML files.  Why not? 
That's what XML is for, yeah?  HTML is, these days, one flavor of XML.

> likewise, let me extend my philosophical point further:
> if our viewer-programs understand our plain-text files
> well enough to present them correctly _without_ having
> to first run them through some kind of conversion tool
> (such as "markdown"), isn't that a better way to proceed?

Heck yeah!  Where's the PayPal link?

-todd