Re: ISO and HTML

Abigail (abigail@fnx.com)
Sun, 13 Apr 1997 03:20:46 -0400 (EDT)


From: abigail@fnx.com (Abigail)
Message-Id: <199704130720.DAA13568@fnx.com>
Subject: Re: ISO and HTML
To: dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk (Dave Carter)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 03:20:46 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: jkorpela@cc.hut.fi, papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca, www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.94.970402113432.23862J-100000@cass40> from "Dave Carter" at Apr 2, 97 11:40:26 am

Dave Carter wrote:
++ 
++ On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Jukka Korpela wrote:
++ 
++ What is strange about any of that??? It has been clear for a long
++ time that CENTRE should be an attribute to a block level element
++ and that <CENTER> was only included in 3.2 to appease Netscape.
++ CENTRE is the correct spelling where I come from, why should I be
++ penalised for using it. This is an advantage of having a proper
++ international body define standards, not an ad-hoc one from one
++ particular country that thinks it knows it all. 

Ok, but then <CENTREER> should be an alias as well. After all, that's
the correct spelling from where I come from, and why should I be
penelized?

++ > And some of them are good ideas in themselves, like sectioning
++ > elements, but involve a _fundamental_ change in the language.
++ > The same applies to miscellaneous ingredients picked up from
++ > HTML 3.0 and other earlier drafts.
++ 
++ Why then not put <MATH> back in. This is a requirement of many of
++ us. Its absence is the main reason that 3.2 is inadequate. 

What's the point of putting <MATH> in? It has been clear that browser
authors aren't interested in developing MATH support. (Of course not,
neither commercial websites nor Joe Q. User is interested in it).
Putting MATH back in won't change that.

If you want MATH support, go make a browser that deals with it.

I don't see the point in making an ISO standard (or any standard) which
has major features which aren't supported by any non-experimental
browser. All the major browsers ignore the specifications anyway, 99%
of the users doesn't care, and 99% of the authors prefer catering to
browsers than to specs.


Abigail