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

Fisher Mark (FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com)
Fri, 10 May 96 15:35:00 PDT


From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
To: "'Dave Carter'" <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>,
Cc: www-html <www-html@www10.w3.org>
Subject: Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd)
Date: Fri, 10 May 96 15:35:00 PDT
Message-Id: <3193C4EA@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM>


>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.

Well, the problem is that HTML 3.0 is out there, people have coded to it, 
ignoring the fact that it was _just a proposal_.  HTML 3.2 is an attempt to 
get past HTML 3.0, incorporating the parts of HTML 3.0 that are settled as 
well as some of the presentational cruft that has been added ad-hoc because 
we haven't had stylesheets.

From what Dan Connally has said, <math> is on the way; unfortunately, it has 
not been an easy process to develop a structural <math> subset ,as opposed 
to a presentational subset that could be implemented soon but would not 
allow the sorts of automatic processing that should be possible with a 
structural <math>.
======================================================================
Mark Leighton Fisher                   Thomson Consumer Electronics
fisherm@indy.tce.com                   Indianapolis, IN