Re: HTML 3.2

Walter Ian Kaye (boo@best.com)
Thu, 9 May 1996 02:50:25 -0700


Message-Id: <v02140b11adb76eaa6a2a@[205.149.180.135]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 02:50:25 -0700
To: www-html@w3.org
From: boo@best.com (Walter Ian Kaye)
Subject: Re: HTML 3.2

At 10:00a 05/09/96, Dave Carter wrote:
>On Thu, 9 May 1996, MegaZone wrote:
>
>>=20
>> And using '3.2' helps put the nail in the coffin of the long defunct 3.0
>> proposal.  3.0 had some good stuff - it also had some poorly thought out
>> schemes, and it was unweildy.  3.2 covers bits of 3.0 that are in use,
>> and provides an easy point to work from in introducing more.
>>=20
>
>Well as far as I am concerned it doesn't because the functionality of 3.0
>is much greater than 3.2, and at least one browser (arena) supports much
>of the functionality that I require (mostly <math>). So as far as I am
>concerned you can forget 3.2, I will stick to 3.0. There is a fundamental
>divergance here between the scientific and technical world, which you
>are not interested in, and the commercial world which I am not interested
>in.

Not necessarily. Is there any reason why, say, a Java applet cannot=
 implement math support? Such a product would instantly math-enable all=
 browsers supporting Java. Although I don't know what 50 math applets on a=
 page would do to memory usage -- perhaps frames would come in handy here,=
 where a frame contains a generic math applet, and links elsewhere in the=
 document target it with new data... just a thought...

-Walter

__________________________________________________________________________
    Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>     Programmer - Excel, AppleScript,
          Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML
 http://www.natural-innovations.com/     Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter