Re: <MATH> implementation (was Re: ISO and HTML)

Abigail (abigail@fnx.com)
Sun, 13 Apr 1997 13:21:31 -0400 (EDT)


From: abigail@fnx.com (Abigail)
Message-Id: <199704131721.NAA17485@fnx.com>
Subject: Re: <MATH> implementation (was Re: ISO and HTML)
To: walter@natural-innovations.com (Walter Ian Kaye)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 13:21:31 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.3.95.970413044343.5748D-100000@shellx.best.com> from "Walter Ian Kaye" at Apr 13, 97 05:11:40 am

You, Walter Ian Kaye, wrote:
++ 
++ On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Abigail wrote:
++ 
++ > Putting MATH back in won't change that.
++ 
++ Wouldn't an <applet> be best? All we really need is a Java applet that can
++ take an inline formula as a parameter, parse it (perhaps with some hints),
++ and generate a typeset image of the formula, along with a textbox showing
++ the original inline version for copy+paste purposes. Maybe it could even
++ toggle between graphic and text display, though I don't know enough about
++ Java to say whether a paint area and text area could swap positions or not.

Then you might as well use an inline gif. That will reach more users.
(I'd love to see MATH, but I'm not turning Java on for it).  But both
an inline image and a java applet are 100% presentation, there's not
structual information.

Don't get me wrong, I think MATH belongs in HTML. But let's be
realistic.  HTML 3.0 was largely ignored. The TABLES proposal was
redone to fit Netscape's implementation, and where it has gone beyond,
it's being ignored. HTML 2.0 described current practise, and so does
HTML 3.2.

What is the point in making standards if there isn't any indication the
major players will look at it?


Abigail