>>The issue was discussed on this last, back in Nov/Dec 2003. >>Here is the message which mentions the Mozilla bug-report: >> >>http://tug.org/pipermail/latex2html/2003-December/002547.html >> >> >>The latest Mozilla and Firefox do *not* yet have it fixed; >>at least not for Macintosh --- I downloaded both yesterday. >> >>Here's the bugzilla entry. >> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192077 >>The status there is not yet 'fixed'. >> >>It is acknowledged there that the strategy (as used by LaTeX2HTML) >>is correct according to the HTML 4.0 (and earlier) recommendations. >> >> >>Hope this helps,
I've parsed the comments on the bug, and I'm suprised that it needs such a discussion to convince developers that compatibility should be preserved (i.e. what was correct with Netscape 3 should work alike with Mozilla 1.5). I have some documents with math which have been translated long ago (and which are not in the top 100 sites, alas). Should I understand from this discussion that I should re-translate or filter these documents once the bug is fixed ? I thought (and claimed frequently to encourage use of HTML as a text formatter) that HTML solved long term portability of documents. The discussion is a bit disappointing from this point of view. Besides, I don't find the css workaround very satisfactory. What about people desactivating css in their browser ? IMHO, HTML *should* give a readable result with the *simplest* browser configuration. Having inline images nor properly aligned is simply *not* readable, thus not publishable. Should I insist by adding a new comment to the bug ? I strongly support comment 17. -- Jean-Pierre _______________________________________________ latex2html mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/latex2html
