W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Thoughts on MathML and the DOM

From: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:52:27 -0600
Message-Id: <200303121952.h2CJqRM30522@wisdom.geomtech.com>
To: ajvincent@juno.com
CC: www-math@w3.org, www-dom@w3.org


> I recently posted a note to my weblog detailing some issues I believe
> the Math WG and the DOM WG should consider:
> http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/weirdal/archives/002590.html
> Max Froumentin of Math WG suggested to me in June 2002 there are no
> plans for a new version of MathML; I believe it may be time for some
> discussion on whether a new minor version is needed/desirable or not
> (2.1, not 3.0).
> Opinions?

The time is not right for another version.  

The current working group charter expires this summer, and it last
major deliverable is a 2nd Edition of MathML 2.0 that incorporates the
errata/bug fixes collected over the last couple years.  After that,
there will likely be a Math interest group at W3C serving primarily
maintanence and liason roles, and to recharter a working group for a
revision to the spec at some point in the future.

Apart from these administrative reasons, there is a deeper, underlying
reason: many organizations are just now starting to switch over to XML
workflows utilizing MathML.  Until there is some real data about what
problems these adopters really hit, it is too soon the guess what a
revision of the spec should contain.  Further, introducing a new
version of the spec would make existing MathML implementations
obsolete, just as they are actually being deployed and used.  Not a
good idea.


Dr. Robert Miner                                RobertM@dessci.com
MathML 2.0 Specification Co-editor                    651-223-2883
Design Science, Inc.   "How Science Communicates"   www.dessci.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2003 14:52:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:11 UTC