- From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 09:46:39 +0100 (BST)
- To: schwarte <schwarte@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
On Thu, 9 May 1996, schwarte wrote: > In HTML 3.2 some of the HTML 3.0 tags donīt occure. <MATH> and <FIG> and > related elements have been skipped. WHY?? > Itīs true, that these features were not implemented in commercial browsers > like the netscape-navigator or the MS-Internet-explorer. Itīs also true > that these taks have allmost not been used in practise. > But that is not a reason to destroy them. > I think unimplemented and unused <math>-tags are better then > no math tags at all. Too much has allready been written about this. > BTW, I am the author of a german book about HTML, that also has been > published in frensh and dutch, and this books describes <math> and <fig> > and all the related elements and so do most of the books I know. My > book even describes how to read a DTD! > There is hardly any HTML-author who is not aware of the existance of > the mentioned HTML 3.0 tags and of their special syntax. > Later contributions to HTML concerning Math. or Figures should be > upwards compatible to the HTML 3.0 suggestions as far as possible. > Will this happen? > > Now back to the question - WHY have those elements been eliminated? > It would make no difference to the "commercial"-users if they were still > in the DTD. But donīt forget there are a few very interesting noncommercial > browsers too! UdiWWW, which is distributed on the CD that is part of my > HTML-book, is one example. It is a freeware product programmed at university > of Ulm (Germany). The programmers of such browsers DO care > about DTDs, but Netscape and Microsoft donīt and they will never do. > > Best wishes, Joachim Schwarte > > I agree completely. <MATH> is implemented, in arena, and as you say in udiWWW. It is produced by latex2html. I use it all the time in my documentation (mostly via latex2html). <FIG> is implemented in Lynx-FM. these tags are very useful. We need to find a way to take html 3.0 forward, and to convince people it is a better starting point than html 3.2, despite the numbering system. Maybe we should forget about standards, and just set up a group to develop html 3.0 in a rigorous way. As the writers of arena appear to have sold out, what is the chance of a port to X of udiWWW?? Dave Carter
Received on Friday, 10 May 1996 04:46:45 UTC