Re: Scheme Programming Reference

[Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Tyson writes:
 > I will argue it.  The "SGML Handbook" is and always will be the
 > definitive reference work on SGML.
I don't deny it. but you dont argue against my contention that it
put a million people off

 > Handbook.  Although it's subject matter is much narrower, I place it
 > alongside Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming", Abelson's and
 > Sussman's "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs", and
 > Hofstadter's "Goedel, Escher, Bach" among the most elegant treatments of
ah, the great trio of "Yes I had a copy of that but never read it"
books.

 > easy and pretty.  We were fortunate that the chief architect of SGML was
 > also quite literate.
well, I studied Byzantine literature for my degree, so I might
appreciate it, but I am not sure I class Charles as a great writer
(despite his many other obvious merits)

 > is there any chance someone can collect information from members of the
 > ISO working group that created DSSSL? 
wouldnt they say they put their collective wisdom into the standard?
actually, I don't find it so bad. Its the presentation thats execrable
(lack of indexing, running heads etc ).

 > deceptively simple, but far from self-apparent.  I myself would like
 > everyone to think in DSSSL for formatting and transforming documents,
 > but that is unrealistic to say the least.
er, if you think its too complicated for Jane Public to understand,
why exactly are we promoting it?

sebastian


 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist