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

Paul Prescod (papresco@itrc.uwaterloo.ca)
Fri, 10 May 1996 06:15:20 -0400


Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 06:15:20 -0400
Message-Id: <199605101015.GAA29940@itrc.uwaterloo.ca>
To: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
From: Paul Prescod <papresco@itrc.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Re: <math>, <fig>, ...
Cc: dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk (Dave Carter), schwarte@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de,

At 02:17 AM 5/10/96 -0700, MegaZone wrote:
>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.

We all agree that there are always going to be HTML variants.

A new HTML 3.0 could be HTML 2.0 + W3C good stuff (math,style,object) + the
well designed features from the old HTML 3.0 spec.

In other words, it would be HTML 3.2 + W3C good stuff - Netscape crap.

And once again, before I get accused of being an idealist, I don't expect
that "HTML 3.0" would be "embraced by the masses", but it would be a good,
solid, well-thought out standard for those of us who want that. HTML 3.2
would go on to be ignored by both of its target audiences, those that care
about standards (and thus want them to by of high quality) and those that do
not (and thus, do not care about HTML 3.2 or any other standard).

 Paul Prescod