- From: <schwarte@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 20:33:14 -0100
- To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Dan Conolly wrote: > (1) HTML math will interoperate richly with symbolic > math systems like maple and mathematica > and > (2) it won't look very much like HTML 3.0 math > (though the HTML 3.0 markup might be supported as > an option) > ... > But <object> doesn't address the need to represent figures > with descriptive markup. In recent proposals for FIG that I've > seen, a figure wouldn't even necessarily involve a graphic. > ... > Of course, fig and object can be combined. Sorry, but I do not completely understand. Will <math>, <fig>, <overlay> and related tags that I am missing in HTML 3.2 (and so are many HTML-users) be in back in future versions, perhaps in HTML 4.0? Again the question: Why have they been eliminated in the present version, which obviously in not allready that official as "Magazone" believes? Am I right that HTML 3.2 covers just a subset of the tags that are meant to be official, whatever that means? If so, HTML 3.2 seems to be a confusing interlude. I also do not understand why the "extended HTML-tables" are not included in HTML 3.2. The DTD on this topic seemed to be allmost finished. Will this be in a future version too? And what about client-side-imagemaps? The <fig> based concept seems to be better then the concept of Seidman that has been implemented in HTML 3.2. I guess that it is because Netscape and Microsoft did implement it as well. Or will there be an <object> based concept for client-side-imagemaps in the future? My suggestion: PLEASE stop talking about the official HTML 3.2 and release some unofficial HTML X.Y as soon as possible, that covers all the mentioned stuff. Joachim Schwarte
Received on Friday, 10 May 1996 14:35:07 UTC