Re: HTML 3.2

On Thu, 9 May 1996, MegaZone wrote:

> And using '3.2' helps put the nail in the coffin of the long defunct 3.0
> proposal.  3.0 had some good stuff - it also had some poorly thought out
> schemes, and it was unweildy.  3.2 covers bits of 3.0 that are in use,
> and provides an easy point to work from in introducing more.

Well as far as I am concerned it doesn't because the functionality of 3.0
is much greater than 3.2, and at least one browser (arena) supports much
of the functionality that I require (mostly <math>). So as far as I am
concerned you can forget 3.2, I will stick to 3.0. There is a fundamental
divergance here between the scientific and technical world, which you
are not interested in, and the commercial world which I am not interested
in. Unfortunately your world has money, and mine doesn't. So I guess you
win. Unless there are enough people with the knowledge and the time to
develop specs and browsers for scientific and technical use only. 

Dave Carter

Received on Thursday, 9 May 1996 05:00:44 UTC