[FFML] A thought on the future of the FFML

[Adrian Tymes]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Brian Randall <durandall at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:30 AM, The Wanderer <wanderer at fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
> >
> > While I would certainly prefer for the chosen requirements to be either
> > plain text or something easily convertible to/from plain text (and that
> > can be discussed separately, though I'm not going to do it right this
> > moment), that's not essential for the type of dual-interface
> > compatibility that was being proposed; having the requirements be the
> > same in both interfaces *is* essential.
>
> Plain text would be preferred, I think.  While it would be nice to
> have the same level of html support as (say) ff.net -- italics, bold,
> underlines -- nothing else -- it's a slippery slope.  "If we can have
> _those_, why can't I embed music/images/etc.!?"  Because we're
> offering C&C on your text, not those other things.
>

Not so slippery.  Besides the reason you pointed out, the basic set
- bold, italic, underline, and perhaps autoparse obvious links - is
the basic set implemented in many cases, and obvious to the
reader in those cases where it is not implemented.  Further, these
are rarely essential to the works being reviewed.  (Many - possibly
most - books get by just fine without images, let alone music.)

If someone wants music/images/etc., they must find a way to
render them in clients that don't yet support them - which seems
not possible, without resorting to things like links to said media
which is possible in the basic set anyway.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.chez-vrolet.net/pipermail/ffml/attachments/20130626/8f46e714/attachment.html>