I am confused (was: Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd))

schwarte@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de
Fri, 10 May 1996 20:33:14 -0100


From: schwarte@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de
To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 20:33:14 -0100
Subject: I am confused (was: Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd))
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <549A4A6B9B@iwb.bauingenieure.uni-stuttgart.de>

Dan Conolly wrote:
> 	(1) HTML math will interoperate richly with symbolic
> 	math systems like maple and mathematica
> and
> 	(2) it won't look very much like HTML 3.0 math
> 	(though the HTML 3.0 markup might be supported as
> 	an option)
> ...
> But <object> doesn't address the need to represent figures
> with descriptive markup. In recent proposals for FIG that I've
> seen, a figure wouldn't even necessarily involve a graphic.
> ... 
> Of course, fig and object can be combined.
 
Sorry, but I do not completely understand. 
Will <math>, <fig>, <overlay> and related tags that I am missing in
HTML 3.2 (and so are many HTML-users) be in back in future versions,
perhaps in HTML 4.0?
Again the question: Why have they been eliminated in the
present version, which obviously in not allready that official as 
"Magazone" believes?
Am I right that HTML 3.2 covers just a subset of the tags that are 
meant to be official, whatever that means? If so, HTML 3.2 seems 
to be a confusing interlude. 

I also do not understand why the "extended HTML-tables" are not
included in HTML 3.2. The DTD on this topic seemed to be allmost
finished. Will this be in a future version too?

And what about client-side-imagemaps? The <fig> based concept seems
to be better then the concept of Seidman that has been implemented in
HTML 3.2. I guess that it is because Netscape and Microsoft did 
implement it as well.  Or will there be an <object> based concept for 
client-side-imagemaps in the future?

My suggestion: PLEASE stop talking about the official 
HTML 3.2 and release some unofficial HTML X.Y as soon as possible, 
that covers all the mentioned stuff. 

Joachim Schwarte