Re: HTML4.0 draft: comments re: inclusion of frames (fwd)

Dave Carter (dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk)
Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:50:13 +0100 (BST)


Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:50:13 +0100 (BST)
From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
To: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <199709101128.EAA05252@server.livingston.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.970910124401.5084C-100000@cass40>
Subject: Re: HTML4.0 draft: comments re: inclusion of frames (fwd)



On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, MegaZone wrote:

> Once upon a time Dave Carter shaped the electrons to say...
> >The mess whereby HTML has gone down in terms of functionality with every
> >release subsequent to 3.0.
> 
> I*Y*HO.
> 
> I completely disagree.  Personally I think the 3.0 proposal was bloated
> with more worthless crap that 3.2 or 4.0.  There were a few useful items
> I miss - like BANNER - but few.  I don't think the MATH support in 3.0
> was well thought out either and I'm glad it was dropped.  If the claims
> of portability and the ability to convey real contextual data - to allow
> for importing/exporting from mathematics software - hold true, I am more
> than happy to wait for it.
> 
> A purely presentational system is little better than incluing gifs.  IMHO.

Well I am afraid I do not agree with you at all. Mathematical symbols
and equations are as much part of technical documentation as words, and
you do not hold back from presenting words because there isn't the
facility to import/export to some package capable of analysing semantics.
I do not understand what you find of value in 4.0 that wasn't in 2.0.
Certainly not frames and scripting I hope. I find these of no value at
all. They do not help in the clear and precise presentation of
information. Which is what the WWW is all about.

Dave Carter