Re: ISO and HTML (fwd)

MegaZone (megazone@livingston.com)
Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:26:11 -0800 (PST)


Message-Id: <199704022226.OAA24268@server.livingston.com>
Subject: Re: ISO and HTML (fwd)
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:26:11 -0800 (PST)
From: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>

Once upon a time Dave Carter shaped the electrons to say...
>this two years ago, they would have started from the vastly superior HTML
>3.0 draft, and we would have had <MATH>. It was there, it was done. I see

There were many DUMB things in HTML 3.0 - and it rightfully died.

MATH was ill thought out.  It was lacking portability and compatibility with
nigh-every mathematical program on the market.  That was recognized, and 
doing it just to have something is something any good engineer knows is 
stupid.  The only problem is the MATH WG in the W3C has been taking way too
long to produce a real answer.  They have been dropping bits for over a
year now, but no final answer.

Are they stuck in some internal squabble or what?

>It is some kind of standardisation which is more than we have now. 

Says you.  I, and the VAST majority of people using HTML that I have ever
heard from, believe the W3C is fine as a standards body for HTML.  And
since I expect all of the major vendors to ignore ISO (they're mostly ignored
anyway) it is just wasted effort.  You'll be stuck with inferior, fringe
browsers if you insist on using ISO - should it diverge significantly from
the W3C spec.  If that is what you want, have fun.  I plan on sticking with
the accepted path.

It sounds to me like you didn't get what you wanted, so now you're whining
about it.

-MZ
--
Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs
Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com
For support requests: support@livingston.com  <http://www.livingston.com/> 
Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588