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

Fisher Mark (FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com)
Tue, 14 May 96 06:58:00 PDT


From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
To: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: "'MegaZone'" <megazone@livingston.com>, www-html <www-html@www10.w3.org>
Subject: Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd)
Date: Tue, 14 May 96 06:58:00 PDT
Message-Id: <31989194@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM>


>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??

From what I understand, the current <MATH> spec is heavy on the 
presentational aspects but a lightweight in the structural aspects. 
 Automatic processing of <MATH> parts apparently requires better structural 
support than the HTML 3.0 <MATH> contains.

If anyone from the Mathematica and Maple vendors cares to speak up about 
this, please do so.  IANAMW (I am not a Math Wizard).
======================================================================
Mark Leighton Fisher                   Thomson Consumer Electronics
fisherm@indy.tce.com                   Indianapolis, IN