- From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:36:09 +0100 (BST)
- To: Jukka Korpela <jkorpela@cc.hut.fi>
- cc: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, www-html@w3.org
On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Jukka Korpela wrote: > and so on. So you admit that the intention _is_ to make ISO HTML > different from HTML 3.2 after all. There will be debates on the > _desirability_ of this and that feature instead of just writing up > a more rigorous specification. Probably endless debates. (A somewhat > naive comment from someone, saying we want MATH, sounds promising > in this sense. Still, I'm a bit sad about wasted human resources. > People involved would certainly be competent to do very useful things.) Thats me you are insulting if that was your intention. If ISO had started this two years ago, they would have started from the vastly superior HTML 3.0 draft, and we would have had <MATH>. It was there, it was done. I see no reason why it can't just be put back into 3.2 as is. > > > ISO HTML is not for the people who who are confused about HTML 2.0, 3.0 > > etc. ISO HTML is for the corporations and governments - - > > Really? Does it say so? It is really beneficial for the World Wide Web > community to have a different standard for corporations and governments > than for the rest of us? What kind of standardization is that? It is some kind of standardisation which is more than we have now. dave Carter
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 1997 06:36:08 UTC