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

Foteos Macrides (MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu)
Fri, 10 May 1996 10:11:49 -0500 (EST)


Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 10:11:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Subject: Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd)
To: connolly@beach.w3.org
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <01I4JC6DWPPY00E1YU@SCI.WFBR.EDU>

"Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org> wrote:
>In message <199605100936.CAA04392@server.livingston.com>, MegaZone writes:
>>Once upon a time schwarte@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de shaped the electrons to say...
>>>I don t see ANY reason to eliminate these HTML-features.
>>
>>Why do I get thie feeling you didn't read my first reply?
>>
>><MATH> is *not* dead - you just *do not* put tags that are not ready in
>>an official DTD like 3.2.  You *must* understand that '3.0' was purely
>>experimental and 3.2 is not.
>
>On this count, I agree. Math is definitely on the agenda.
>[... stuff about MATH ...]
>
>><FIG> on the other hand is dead - because <OBJECT> is *better*.  Why
>>would you want to cripple yourself with a weaker tag?  Let it die and
>>move on to the future.
>
>Here, I have to disagree. [... stuff about FIG and OBJECT ...]

	Would you please also comment on the description of the 3.2 DTD
as "official".   Is it going to be submitted to the IETF HTML working
group, with change control passed to that body?

				Fote

=========================================================================
 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
=========================================================================