Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd)

On Fri, 10 May 1996, Fisher Mark wrote:

> Well, the problem is that HTML 3.0 is out there, people have coded to it, 
> ignoring the fact that it was _just a proposal_.  HTML 3.2 is an attempt to 
> get past HTML 3.0, incorporating the parts of HTML 3.0 that are settled as 
> well as some of the presentational cruft that has been added ad-hoc because 
> we haven't had stylesheets.

Yes, it is out there, and it is just as much out there as <center> and
<font>, and indeed more so since markup with it in can ve validated with
Halsoft at least, probably more, and can be produced with latex2html. So
there is no reason not to include <math> as at the html3.0 draft in
html 3.2
> >From what Dan Connally has said, <math> is on the way; unfortunately, it has 
> not been an easy process to develop a structural <math> subset ,as opposed 
> to a presentational subset that could be implemented soon but would not 
> allow the sorts of automatic processing that should be possible with a 
> structural <math>.

But this seems to me a far more complicated task than defining a method
of presentation of mathematical symbols. Interaction with Mathematica and
Maple is all very well, but should not be used to hold up the ability
to present (if that isn't too rude a word) mathematical symbols and
equations. If html 3.2 is supposed to define current practice, why not
include the current practice as far as <math> is concerned.

Dave Carter

Received on Monday, 13 May 1996 04:46:29 UTC