Re: %flow and headers and address

Dave Carter (dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk)
Thu, 26 Sep 1996 08:47:23 +0100 (BST)


Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 08:47:23 +0100 (BST)
From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
To: Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <galactus@htmlhelp.com>
cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: %flow and headers and address
In-Reply-To: <HkWSy4uYOBZY089yn@htmlhelp.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.94.960926084432.12664B-100000@cass40>



On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> In article <199609241139.MAA11209@curia.ucc.ie>,
> Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie> wrote:
> > I'm producing a composite HTMLX.DTD which will replace this and much 
> > else, as I see no good reason why advanced users of HTML should be
> > penalised by 3.2
> 
> Then why aren't you using the Cougar DTD instead? HTML 3.2 is
> only intended as a replacement for HTML 2.0, not for 3.0.
> 
> As I said on c.i.w.a.h., can we finally stop the "3.2 is less than
> 3.0!" debate and start working on something useful?
> 
> Galactus

Not unless somebody is working on something useful, and it sounds as if
Peter is working on the most useful thing I have heard of for a while.
For me the critical difference is whether it includes <MATH>. If Peter's
draft does include <MATH> (the HTML 3.0 <MATH> that is) then I for one
will be eternally grateful and will most certainly use it.

Dave Carter