Re: HTML 3.2 [was: Unique Names & content scope -Reply ]

Daniel W. Connolly (
Tue, 07 May 1996 15:03:08 -0400

Message-Id: <>
To: Dave Carter <>
Cc: Jonas Liljegren <>,
Subject: Re: HTML 3.2 [was: Unique Names & content scope -Reply ] 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 May 1996 16:23:56 BST."
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 15:03:08 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <>

In message <Pine.GSO.3.93.960507162206.15165F-100000@cass56>, Dave Carter write
>	Where is the <math> draft in all of this.

Not ready for publication yet. But there is a group of experts
spending considerable time refining proposals. Stay tuned to:

	Math MarkUp in HTML[1]
	W3C Activity Statement for HTML[2]

> In science and
>engineering, which is after all where WWW came from, <math> is vitally
>important, to me it is more important than any other possible html 3
>enhancements put together.

At our stylesheets workshop in Paris[3], Dave Seigel gave a very
eye-opening description of the market for HTML:

                                          |             |
                                          |             |
                                          |             |
                                          |             |
                   --------------         |             |
                   |            |         |             |
  ------------     | Commercial |         |             |
  | Academic |     |            |         |             |

The "science and engineering" market would be 3x dominated b3 the
commercial world (marketing and trading) which would be 3x dominated
by the entertainment market.

So the folks looking for long-lasting structured markup are dominated
9x by the folks who want glitzy throw-away stuff.

I'm not saying that HTML must meet the requirements of the
Entertainment business -- they'll be happy with Java, PDF,
noise-makers, or whatever technology de jure makes the box sing and

It's just that there's a LOT more resource behind the glitzy stuff
than there is behind stuff like math.