References: <v03110704b28f22c46b62@[130.237.37.54]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID:  <19981206151331.A12791@maths.tcd.ie>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <v03110704b28f22c46b62@[130.237.37.54]>; from Hans Aberg on Sun,
              Dec 06, 1998 at 12:16:02PM +0100
Date:         Sun, 6 Dec 1998 15:13:31 +0000
From: Timothy Murphy <tim@MATHS.TCD.IE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: What is "base" LaTeX
Status: R

On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 12:16:02PM +0100, Hans Aberg wrote:

> I used *ML as a collective term for those various ML's: Then a lot already
> use HTML, and this will be replaced XML if now Netscape and Microsoft and
> those will implement it on their WWW-browsers.

I find it curious that in all this discussion
it seems to be assumed that while everything else will be turned upside-down
Netscape and InternetExplorer will remain the only browsers in use,
understanding only HTML/XML.

It seems to me more likely that there will be dozens of browsers around,
many of which will have no difficulty displaying PDF, DVI, etc.

Consequently the "argument by browser" for *ML
seems to me entirely devoid of merit.
If there is an argument for MathML, OpenMath, etc
(and I can see that there is one, though I remain unpersuaded)
it will have to be based on more fundamental principles.

Ps If xdvi worked as advertised it would itself be a TeX browser.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: tim@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland