W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > October 2016

Re: [mediaqueries] MathML

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 02:13:44 +0900
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>
Message-Id: <535711E2-B53B-454D-B71E-52B857271A58@rivoal.net>
To: Paul Topping <pault@dessci.com>

> On Oct 6, 2016, at 00:55, Paul Topping <pault@dessci.com> wrote:
> 
> I'll admit that MathML has some challenges in terms of being well-defined with its implementation in UAs being so variable and the MathML spec so complex and open to interpretation, but I'm sure they can be solved.

Sure, and improving the quality of MathML implementations is likely to improve usage of MathML as a delivery format. I don't think the MQ would.


> Given a suitable definition of "UA implements MathML", there should be no question that it exposes an important UA characteristic. Since MathML is part of HTML5, it could be argued that it should have an MQ even if all UAs report no implementation using it.

There is not MQ for HTML5. There is no MQ for features of HTML5. So that's not a very good guideline.

There are MQs for characteristics of the rendering device (see https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries/). The closest one to a MathML MQ is the 'script' MQ, but this one is different and fairly unique in that it does not need extra granularity on the level of support for the scripting language: if you can run scripts, you can make these tests yourself in the scripts that you can run. The same isn't true of MathML.

 - Florian
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2016 17:14:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:46 UTC