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

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: MegaZone: "Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd)"
• Previous message: schwarte@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de: "Re: <math>, <fig>, ..."
• Maybe in reply to: schwarte: "<math>, <fig>, ..."
• Next in thread: Walter Ian Kaye: "Re: <math>, <fig>, ..."

From: schwarte@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de
To: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 11:28:14 -0100
Subject: Re: <math>, <fig>, ...
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <4B842D7AD4@iwb.bauingenieure.uni-stuttgart.de>

MegaZone wrote

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

OK, I see  <Object> will supercede <FIG>. <Object> is future, <FIG> 
is reality in some noncommercial browsers.
I see that there is no reason to develop <FIG> any further.
But there still is no reason to eliminate it!
Leave it in the DTD, and put it in the "deprecated" section when
<Object> is available. 
Same is true for <math>

Joachim Schwarte

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: MegaZone: "Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd)"
• Previous message: schwarte@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de: "Re: <math>, <fig>, ..."
• Maybe in reply to: schwarte: "<math>, <fig>, ..."
• Next in thread: Walter Ian Kaye: "Re: <math>, <fig>, ..."