Nico commented recently: > I also had the feeling for some time, and the same feeling exists in > the SGML community, that the developments of HTML-Math and of HTML > in general were suffering from a NIH syndrome. I understand such perceptions, think it's wise for this committee to keep good citizenship in mind, and agree that we should be receptive to reaction and criticism from elsewhere. My own perceptions of this committee's work to date follow. While the immediate goal of an HTML-Math capability might have been to simply render math visually (and perhaps this was the goal of HTML-Math 3), that goal has been considerably expanded as we look at issues now. Insofar as the work of the ISO 12083 Math Committee stopped short of recommending ways to handle "semantic" aspects of math markup, recognizing that the issues were many and difficult, the work of this committee in that regard feels to me a welcome addition to the overall discussion of those sorts of problems. And as the semantics of any formal discipline lies rather closer to form than I've heard many SGML diehards acknowledge, I also welcome this committee's efforts to examine a more primitive notational base for the standard. This effort, in some sense competing with Roy Pike's, seems very healthy to me. Pike appears undissuadable in my view. The Wolfram proposal certainly acknowledges the need to accommodate SGML entities and supports and SGML style of markup. In my recent list of questions and comments to Bruce, I made reference to the fact that I felt ISO 12083 Math gave a good basis for the fundamental layout schemata and might better be used than TeX for HTML-math. I was hoping, and still do, that formal support such as this would give a direct means of filtering ISO 12083 math into HTML-math. Support in this way gives strong acknowledgement to prior SGML work. And then there may be the feeling that WRI is pushing a standard of its own. While Stephen himself broadcasts at a very powerful wattage, I've found the committee members from WRI quite accommodating and undogmatic. I view their contributions as wholly positive. I'm certain that Nico was *not* asserting otherwise, but I would communicate this to others from outside the committee if a perception of a WRI-centric "standard" is misapprehended. This is a quiet statement, not a defensive one. -RonReceived on Wednesday, 5 June 1996 10:14:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 15 April 2023 17:19:57 UTC