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

MegaZone (megazone@livingston.com)
Fri, 10 May 1996 02:17:15 -0700 (PDT)


Message-Id: <199605100917.CAA04246@server.livingston.com>
Subject: Re: <math>, <fig>, ...
To: dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk (Dave Carter)
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 02:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: schwarte@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de, www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.93.960510093943.29909B-100000@cass26> from "Dave Carter" at May 10, 96 09:46:39 am
From: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>

Once upon a time Dave Carter shaped the electrons to say...
>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

<FIG> is lame - why would anyone want to cling to it when <OBJECT>
supercedes it?  Am I missing something here?

>forward, and to convince people it is a better starting point than html

You'd have a *lot* of convincing to do, having followed 3.0 for, or,
the last 2 years or so - before it really was 3.0 at least, when it was
'cool stuff we'd like to do after 2.0' - I don't think it is superior
to 3.2 *plus* the projects being worked in in the W3C.  And <MATH> is 
one of those projects.  Trying to work in solidifying 3.0 is stupid
duplication of effort since most of the same feautres, of features
that supercede them, are already being worked on for the next generation
going forward from 3.2.

-MZ
--
Although I work for Livingston Enterprises Technical Support, I alone am
responsible for everything contained herein.  So don't waste my managers'
time bitching to them if you don't like something I've said.  Flame me.
Phone: 800-458-9966  support@livingston.com  <http://www.livingston.com/> 
FAX: 510-426-8951    6920 Koll Center Parkway #220, Pleasanton, CA 94566