Re: HTML 3.2 -Reply

>>> MegaZone <> 05/08/96 11:12pm >>>
>The W3C had lost leadership, if they even attempted to create a
>new spec without first acknowledging the de facto standard first
>they'd be ignored.

IMHO, the W3C lost leadership.  I'm not sure what
leadership it had, actually.  I know I first saw <div>
in HTML 3, and that's about it. Perhaps it will gain 
leadership, but I don't see how Wilbur puts it in a 
better place.  

Maybe there is leadership, maybe the W3C is even 
manipulating the price of oil, but I don't see it
in Wilbur.

>If you read what is available, HTML 3.2 provides a new base to
>work from.
>It recognizes the things most authors are doing anyway, gives
>then an official
>DTD to allow all browsers easy implimentation without reverse
>engineering, and gives a jumping off point for other things.

What's new in 3.2 other than "Official" acknowlegement? 
Microsoft had already written a (beta) dtd.  Why is
having an official W3C dtd so great?

>Another thing to note - I've been in the HTML Writers Guild for a
>bit now and on all of their mailing lists.  That is a lot of
>writers.  Off the top of my head I don't recall a single question
>on <MATH> - but many questions on inserting things (<OBJECT>) and
>on Style Sheets.  <MATH> is not  important to the majority of the
>people writing HTML - comercial businesses and personal
>homepages.  So if some people really want it, maybe they should
>help write the spec instead of whining that other people aren't
>doing it.

It's true that I, personally, have little use for
<math>.  But several professors here at NPS would
like to put their equations directly in HTML, and
I've had to tell them that math isn't supported by
the Major browsers, so they should put it in Gif's,
if possible.

As for writing the spec: I have to admit I don't 
have the SGML expirence (the only sgml stuff I've 
done is HTML) or the math experience (I don't think
basic calculus would cut it) to write a specification
for math in HTML.

Taking into consideration your comments on the 
commercial nature of HTML, and the direction 
Wilbur takes us, I wonder if "official" HTML 
will satisfy educational, military, and 
research/scientific needs.

>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.  

What were the poorly "thought out schemes"?  The only 
one I've heard of that was the problem with <FIG> being 
a block element (therefore of little use inside, say, 
paragraphs.)  This is not a rhetorical question, I 
really do want to know what problems (other than lack
of support) HTML 3.0 had.

>3.2 covers bits
>of 3.0 that are in use, and provides an easy point to work from
>in introducing more.

Where does this "easy point to work from" come into play?
HTML 3.2 says "this is what is being done by the majority
of browsers".  

Why implement *anything* that is done by
the W3c if it's not implemented by whoever makes the 
dominant browser (right now it's Netscape, next year it 
could be Microsoft's, or even Oracle's.)

>Personally the two things I want to see most now are <OBJECT> and
> Style Sheets.  When those are available I can do most everything
>I want.
>I might use <MATH> just for cute stuff, but I really don't have a
>need for it on Livingston's pages or mine.

Yeah, it would be good to have <object> and style sheets.
I could put them on my web pages now, actually. But why?

(actually, I do have style information on some of 
my pages.)

>Although I work for Livingston Enterprises Technical Support, I
>alone am responsible for everything contained herein.  So don't 

C  h a r l e s    P e y t o n   T a y l o r

The opinions and views expressed       ##  even though we're on
our own,

are my own and do not reflect          ##        we are never all

Those of the Naval PostGraduate School ##  when we are singing,


Received on Thursday, 9 May 1996 14:22:20 UTC