# Re: Exploring new vocabularies for HTML

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:52:48 +0100
Message-ID: <47F0C280.4050401@cam.ac.uk>
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>


David Carlisle wrote:
>> I'm really uncertain why you think that running an HTML parser to
>> construct an in-memory representation of the HTML in the same in memory
>> format as that used for XML is the wrong way to import HTML content into
>> an application that currently imports only XML.
>
> The concern is importing mathml content.

If it's MathML-in-text/html, you will need a HTML 5 parser. If the product
doesn't have one built in you could use a html-XHTML converter based on a HTML5
parser and XML serializer, as Henri previously pointed out.

>> <wikimath>
> as I said before I have no objection to wiki syntax (I think it's a
> good thing) but I think it should be restricted to wikis.
>
> Not everyone needs mathml, if you are just going to write x^2 + 1 in
> html you can now and may in the future, just go
> x<sup>2</sup> + 1

How does that address my concern about the difficulties of authoring a treatise
on, say, the Maxwell equations in a text editor. As a point of comparison for
those unfamiliar with just how verbose MathML is, I tried using Itex2MML to
convert a TeX representation of one of these equations (in integral form) to
MathML. The result may not be entirely idiomatic MathML but it gives an idea of
the complexity:

The IteX:

$\oint_\text{loop} \mathbf{H} \cdot {d\mathbf{l}} = I_\text{free} + \int_\text{surface} \frac{\partial \mathbf{D}}{\partial t} \cdot d\mathbf{s}$

The equivalent MathML:

<math xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML' display='block'>
<msub>
<mo>&conint;</mo>
<mtext>loop</mtext>
</msub>
<mstyle fontweight="bold">
<mrow>
<mi>H</mi>
</mrow>
</mstyle>
<mo>&sdot;</mo>
<mrow>
<mi>d</mi>
<mstyle fontweight="bold">
<mrow>
<mi>l</mi>
</mrow>
</mstyle>
</mrow>
<mo>=</mo>
<msub>
<mi>I</mi>
<mrow>
<mtext>free</mtext>
</mrow>
</msub>
<mo>+</mo>
<msub>
<mo>&Integral;</mo>
<mtext>surface</mtext>
</msub>
<mfrac>
<mrow>
<mo>&PartialD;</mo>
<mstyle fontweight="bold">
<mrow>
<mi>D</mi>
</mrow>
</mstyle>
</mrow>
<mrow>
<mo>&PartialD;</mo>
<mi>t</mi>
</mrow>
</mfrac>
<mo>&sdot;</mo>
<mi>d</mi>
<mstyle fontweight="bold">
<mrow>
<mi>s</mi>
</mrow></mstyle>
[/itex]

> But to simultaneously try to introduce the benefits of using a common
> mathematical markup language, and to remove the necessity of using any
> markup at all just seems completely broken to me.

As far as I can tell, the net effect of using a markup language for serialising
maths is negative, since it adds an unmanageable amount of verbosity. There are
certainly advantages to the in memory representation being tree-like but that
can be achieved without sacrificing any notion of a human-readable source.

--
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
-- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Received on Monday, 31 March 2008 10:54:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:31 UTC