<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 12 Dec 2009, at 16:11, Alexander Repenning wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">Sorry, but I will have to disagree. Sanity, or personal preference, is one thing - I think few people actually love xml - but for each person capable to write a woking s-expression there are 1,000,000 able to write a working HTML/XML expression. The market has spoken</span></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Sorry, this is just silly. It is true, but <i>almost none of those people are using CCL, let alone writing documentation for it.</i> I would suggest that <i>from the set of people who might want to write documentation for CCL</i> approximately 100% will be able to write a working s-expression. Indeed, we could turn this on its head: we probably do not <i>want</i> people who can't write a working s-expression writing documentation for CCL!</div><div><br></div><div>I think there's also a strong dog-food argument for using some Lisp-based system: we think Lisp is good right?</div><div><br></div><div>Against that is the fact that maintaining your own tool might be a lot of work you don't want – I wouldn't fancy maintaining my own Wiki implementation for instance. That's what killed DTML.</div><div><br></div><div>OK, two marginal rants in 20 minutes is too many, sorry!</div><div><br></div><div>--tim</div></body></html>