Re: <math>, <fig>, ...

Dave Carter (dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk)
Fri, 10 May 1996 09:46:39 +0100 (BST)


Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 09:46:39 +0100 (BST)
From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
To: schwarte <schwarte@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: <math>, <fig>, ...
In-Reply-To: <199605092040.WAA29986@artemis.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.93.960510093943.29909B-100000@cass26>



On Thu, 9 May 1996, schwarte wrote:

> In HTML 3.2 some of the HTML 3.0 tags don=B4t occure. <MATH> and <FIG> an=
d
> related elements have been skipped. WHY??
> It=B4s true, that these features were not implemented  in commercial brow=
sers
> 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?
>=20
> 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 noncommer=
cial
> 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 univers=
ity
> of Ulm (Germany). The programmers of such browsers DO care
> about DTDs, but Netscape and Microsoft don=B4t and they will never do.
>=20
> Best wishes, Joachim Schwarte
>=20
>=20

I agree completely. <MATH> is implemented, in arena, and as you say in
udiWWW. It is produced by latex2html. I use it all the time in my
documentation (mostly via latex2html). <FIG> is implemented in Lynx-FM.
these tags are very useful. We need to find a way to take html 3.0
forward, and to convince people it is a better starting point than html
3.2, despite the numbering system. Maybe we should forget about standards,
and just set up a group to develop html 3.0 in a rigorous way.

As the writers of arena appear to have sold out, what is the chance of
a port to X of udiWWW??

Dave Carter