Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd)

Dave Carter (
Fri, 10 May 1996 11:44:07 +0100 (BST)

Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 11:44:07 +0100 (BST)
From: Dave Carter <>
To: MegaZone <>
Subject: Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.93.960510113759.29909H-100000@cass26>

On Fri, 10 May 1996, MegaZone wrote:

> I guess I fail to see where there is any major flaw in 3.2.  I'd rather
> see the people working on the enhancements start from 3.2 and build on it.
> You lose nothing, and it at least has a chance of being accepted.

The lack of <math> is a major flaw. While <math> in html 3.0 might not be
perfect, it is better than nothing. And nothing is what we are left with
if we adopt 3.2. Lack of backwards compatability with <fig> is a major
flaw. Lack of style sheet support is a major flaw. You say you are doing
that, ok so delay the release until you have. The fact that html 3.2
might be accepted is its major problem, if it wasn't for this I wouldn't
care. The trouble is that browser developers (and I mean browser
developers for serious use, not mass-market) will accept it and will
therefore not implement, improve and extend those html 3.0 features
that we need.
> And your not correct - I *do* care quite a bit about standards and quality,
> I just don't believe 3.2 lacks quality.  It doesn't stun me with it's
> brilliance, but I'm not disgusted by it either.  I feel it is a good point
> to work from, and I will continue to push 3.2 on everyone I help with the
> web until I brainwash the idea of '3.0' out of their heads.  And that's
> a number of people daily.  I was sick of people whining about 3.0 this
> and 3.0 that when there was not such thing once the spec expired, now I
> at least have something concrete.  And the public thinks like "bigger 
> number, must be newer, must be better, let's go!".
And thats another problem. The public will think that, and they will be
wrong. Thats why 3.2 should be 2.2.

Dave Carter