- From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 08:47:23 +0100 (BST)
- To: Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <galactus@htmlhelp.com>
- cc: www-html@w3.org
On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > In article <199609241139.MAA11209@curia.ucc.ie>, > Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie> wrote: > > I'm producing a composite HTMLX.DTD which will replace this and much > > else, as I see no good reason why advanced users of HTML should be > > penalised by 3.2 > > Then why aren't you using the Cougar DTD instead? HTML 3.2 is > only intended as a replacement for HTML 2.0, not for 3.0. > > As I said on c.i.w.a.h., can we finally stop the "3.2 is less than > 3.0!" debate and start working on something useful? > > Galactus Not unless somebody is working on something useful, and it sounds as if Peter is working on the most useful thing I have heard of for a while. For me the critical difference is whether it includes <MATH>. If Peter's draft does include <MATH> (the HTML 3.0 <MATH> that is) then I for one will be eternally grateful and will most certainly use it. Dave Carter
Received on Thursday, 26 September 1996 03:47:38 UTC