> Quite so. Hence my lack of enthusiasm when malcolm suggested acrobat as
> a solution to lack of HTML math support. Plus, anyone who has seen parallel
> HTML and PDF versions of the same document will appreciate the enormous
> difference in file sizes.
i think that my hope was that with the link up
of netscape and adobe we would have a small window
like a present <IMG> which would contain the math fragment
then much less has to be shipped around.
> > The issue will be the extent to which the structure of an equation is
> > described in a way that makes sense to tools that read html --- provided
> > equations have enough structure that one would want to do the sorts of
> > things one might do with other structural information in html.
> Phill Hallam-Baker of W3C spoke to me last year about math support in HTML 3
> and the intention at that time was *not* to replicate TeX/LaTeX, which merely
> describe pictures of equations. He wanted to describe the equation; so there
> was enough info there to drop in intio say a symbolic algebra package or a
> graphing program. That does not seem to have happened.
indeed. (merely indeed!) in fact hyperdvi does more than this
and has linking within and between documents. see, for
example the los alamos e-print archive. exploiting, inter
alia, latex's mere cross referencing mechanism).
i note that
mathcad is touting a new version which incorporates a
browser (if i read their advertising bumph aright).
if html3 merely managed to describe pictures of equations, it
would be doing much more than the draft indicates. if it simply
replicates tex/latex, it would enable tens of thousands of
documents to be effortlessly incorporated, and save thousands
of people from having to learn another (inadequate) notation.
malcolm clark tel: (+44) 01203 523365
computing services fax: (+44) 01203 523267
university of warwick url: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~cudax/egotrip.html
coventry, cv4 7al, uk email: email@example.com
"none but ourselves can free our minds" r.marley