W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [Filter Effects][css3-transforms] Using MathML for formulas

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:07:42 -0700
To: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
CC: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBB6E362-EE09-4937-8C03-53F3A8E79467@adobe.com>

On Apr 22, 2012, at 2:12 AM, "Aryeh Gregor" <ayg@aryeh.name> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Even if viewers are not consistent, at least specifications should be. Ideally we use MathML and provide some fallback. Sadly I have no idea how it can be done without JS (which is not necessarily enabled and shouldn't be required to read a specification).
> I think you can do something sneaky using CSS selectors, like
> @namespace mathml "http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML";
> math { display: none }
> mathml|math { display: block }
> mathml|math + .fallback { display: none }
> Then use markup like
> <math><!-- MathML here --></math>
> <img class="fallback" ...>
That is a great idea! I'll experiment with it. Is there a special version of MathML we should require? MathML 1, 2 or 3? As far as I know Firefox and webkit try to support 3. But webkit is still a bit away from full support.

> In a browser that puts <math> in the MathML namespace in text/html per
> HTML5, and supports CSS Namespaces, the <math> element will be visible
> and the <img> will vanish.  In browsers that don't support MathML or
> don't support CSS Namespaces, the <math> will vanish.  The only case
> in which it will fail unpleasantly is if the browser doesn't support
> CSS at all, in which case you'll get some mangled version of the
> <math> tag as well as the image.
> You still have to contend with the possibility that browsers will have
> bad MathML implementations and would be better served by using the
> <img>, though.
Yes, that is the only thing I worry about. Most of our math is quite basic. Maybe it is not that a big deal.

> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I really like the way wikipedia creates formulas:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Displaying_a_formula. It's simple and the
>> output looks very good.
>> Maybe we can have texcv (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Texvc) on
>> the server when we send the HTML to the w3c server for post-processing.
> texvc is basically just a thin wrapper around LaTeX, whose primary
> purpose in life is to sanitize input so users can't throw Wikimedia
> servers into infinite loops by defining recursive macros or whatever.
> It's also written in OCaml, and nobody understands it.  You're
> probably better off just shelling out to latex directly.

What ever we want to do, some kind of automatism would be great.

Received on Sunday, 22 April 2012 13:08:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:47 UTC