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

> On Fri, 10 May 1996, Fisher Mark wrote:
> > 
> > >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>.

Can someone enlighten me as to exactly why the current <math> draft, and
the arena implementation thereof, was deemed to be not good enough?? Is
this just another case of vendors (in this case Mathematica and Maple)
trying to rewrite a spec to fit in with their products? Why can't we
just add more symbols to the current spec??

Dave Carter

Received on Tuesday, 14 May 1996 07:18:21 UTC