W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mathonwebpages@w3.org > January 2018

Re: [MathOnWeb] call for comments -- directions for 2018

From: Arno Gourdol <arno.gourdol@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:53:30 +0000
Message-Id: <EE400DFC-B2E6-4E4C-8010-7CF99F7E00B4@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Krautzberger <peter@krautzource.com>, Arno Gourdol <arno@arno.org>, mathonweb <public-mathonwebpages@w3.org>
To: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@w3.org>
> Want MathML on the Web?  Make it help with K12 homework. Make it not be
> all or nothing, let's have matrices, fences, roots, maths-style
> stacking superscripts & subscripts. Would splitting MathML up into half
> a dozen sub-specs ala CSS modules actually help?

I think this brings up an interesting question. What is it we want? Is it MathML on the Web? Personally, that’s not what I’m interested in. I am interested in math being easier to display and edit using the web platform.

> For sure the eqn-style notation by Brian Kernighan and Lorinda Cherry
> [1] (which inspired TeX/LaTeX) is massively, massively easier to type
> by hand than anything XML-based. But we don't have LaTeX widely used on
> the Web either (nor eqn)…

Latex is used quite a bit on the web today. Most of the math displayed in Wikipedia (which is quite popular) is authored using Latex (and displayed with MathJax). See this interesting article on Cnoidal Wave[1], for example.

Not that I think it matters terribly what is used to author the content.

But I think this shows that it would be helpful for us to have a face to face discussion to agree on what the objective of this group is. What could make “math” on the web better than it currently is today? What is the goal of a standard description of math content? What could it achieve that is not achieved today on the web?


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnoidal_wave <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnoidal_wave>
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2018 19:30:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 17 January 2018 19:30:24 UTC