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

Dave Carter (dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk)
Tue, 14 May 1996 12:18:03 +0100 (BST)


Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 12:18:03 +0100 (BST)
From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
To: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
Cc: "'MegaZone'" <megazone@livingston.com>, www-html <www-html@www10.w3.org>
Subject: Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.93.960513094030.3359C-100000@cass56>
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.93.960514121347.27560M-100000@cass29>



> 
> On Fri, 10 May 1996, Fisher Mark wrote:
> 
> > 
> > >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>.
> 

Can someone enlighten me as to exactly why the current <math> draft, and
the arena implementation thereof, was deemed to be not good enough?? Is
this just another case of vendors (in this case Mathematica and Maple)
trying to rewrite a spec to fit in with their products? Why can't we
just add more symbols to the current spec??

Dave Carter