I am confused (was: Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd))

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