the sleight-of-hand going on here is where (x)html5 is labeled as the "source", which creates "output". of course, writers don't really write in (x)html5. and

the sleight-of-hand going on here is where (x)html5 is labeled as the "source", which creates "output". of course, writers don't really write in (x)html5. and editors don't really want to edit in (x)html5, because dodging the brackets is a pain in the butt. and when it comes to revision time, _nobody_ will relish digging into the guts of an (x)html5 file. (go look at their files; you will see i am right.) this is an old story, one that has been told before. let's ask the people who "future-proofed" their stuff by putting it in (x)html2.1 how that worked for them. ("wait, there's no 'article' or 'section' tags here!") in the last 5 years, o'reilly made a ton of money off the publishing sector, pushing "xml-first" crap, and .epub too. then they dropped their conferences, and now they're reversing to yet another magic format. sleight-of-hand, baby. it's a beautiful thing. if you can get away with it, that is... -bowerbird