<math>, <fig>, ...

schwarte (schwarte@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de)
Thu, 09 May 1996 22:45:36 -0100


Message-Id: <199605092040.WAA29986@artemis.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 22:45:36 -0100
To: www-html@w3.org
From: schwarte@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de (schwarte)
Subject: <math>, <fig>, ...

In HTML 3.2 some of the HTML 3.0 tags don=B4t occure. <MATH> and <FIG> and
related elements have been skipped. WHY??
It=B4s true, that these features were not implemented  in commercial=
 browsers
like the netscape-navigator or the MS-Internet-explorer. It=B4s also true
that these taks have allmost not been used in practise.=20
But that is not a reason to destroy them.=20
I think unimplemented and unused <math>-tags are better then
no math tags at all. Too much has allready been written about this.
BTW, I am the author of a german book about HTML, that also has been
published in frensh and dutch, and this books describes <math> and <fig>
and all the related elements and so do most of the books I know. My
book even describes how to read a DTD!
There is hardly any HTML-author who is not aware of the existance of
the mentioned HTML 3.0 tags and of their special syntax.
Later contributions to HTML concerning Math. or Figures should be
upwards compatible to the HTML 3.0 suggestions as far as possible.=20
Will this happen?

Now back to the question -  WHY have those elements been eliminated?
It would make no difference to the "commercial"-users if they were still
in the DTD. But don=B4t forget there are a few very interesting=
 noncommercial
browsers too! UdiWWW, which is distributed on the CD that is part of my=20
HTML-book, is one example. It is a freeware product programmed at university
of Ulm (Germany). The programmers of such browsers DO care
about DTDs, but Netscape and Microsoft don=B4t and they will never do.

Best wishes, Joachim Schwarte