W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Exploring new vocabularies for HTML

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:17:26 -0400
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org, public-html-request@w3.org, www-math@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF697ADB4A.02A8AD46-ON8525741D.0074C8C1-8525741D.0074F3DB@us.ibm.com>
Henri Sivonen wrote on 03/30/2008 06:46:33 AM:
>
> What I think is problematic is using product-
> specific formats instead of Content MathML. Allowing product-specific
> formats diminishes the incentive for vendors to use Content MathML for
> semantic round-tripping.

[on behalf of Jacques Distler]

Having sat down to read the Mailing list archives on the subject, I
had one more comment, on the <semantics>/<annotation> element.

I have long toyed with the idea of having itex2MML [1] use
<annotation> to embed the itex source for the equation. With a little
DOM-wrangling, this would allow copy/paste roundtripping of the itex
source. The lack of such roundtripping is the biggest current
annoyance when commenting on my blog [2] or on the n-category Cafe [3].

I realize that embedding vendor-specific markup in <annotation> was
derided [4] by some in that thread. But I am not sure what alternative
would be more desirable. Anyway, this is very much unimplemented, and
may never be implemented. But, given that, for most authors, the
equation-entry syntax will be some LaTeX derivative (like itex), it
seems to me desirable to keep open the option of embedding the
original markup, using <annotation>.

Jacques

[1] http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/itex2MML.html
[2] http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/

[3] http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/

[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0302.html
Received on Monday, 31 March 2008 21:18:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:13 GMT