- From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 12:18:03 +0100 (BST)
- To: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
- Cc: "'MegaZone'" <megazone@livingston.com>, www-html <www-html@www10.w3.org>
> > 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