Re: RFS: orphaned 'htp' package, an HTML pre-processor

2004-11-12 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.12.0722 +0100]: > Why do we need some virtual packages? Briefly: Variety. Freedom of > choice, perhaps? There are arguments for and against everything. As I said: if htp is a true alternative to wml, put it in. If it's inferior, don't. -

Re: RFS: orphaned 'htp' package, an HTML pre-processor

2004-11-12 Thread David Moreno Garza
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 19:24 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > Do we need htp when there is wml? Why do we need some virtual packages? Briefly: Variety. Freedom of choice, perhaps? -- David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.damog.net/ GPG: 356E16CD - 84F0 E180 8AF6 E8D0 842F B520 63F3 0

Re: RFS: orphaned 'htp' package, an HTML pre-processor

2004-11-12 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.12.0722 +0100]: > Why do we need some virtual packages? Briefly: Variety. Freedom of > choice, perhaps? There are arguments for and against everything. As I said: if htp is a true alternative to wml, put it in. If it's inferior, don't. -