Re: MATH

Lineaer Algebraiker (ma104@math.uio.no)
Sun, 12 May 1996 13:42:28 +0200


Message-Id: <199605121142.NAA00274@gilgamesj.uio.no>
To: Abigail <abigail@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: MATH
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 11 May 1996 17:54:39 +0200." <199605111554.RAA21859@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl>
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 13:42:28 +0200
From: Lineaer Algebraiker <ma104@math.uio.no>

> You, Lineaer Algebraiker wrote:
> ++ =

> ++ Oblig. Math question:
> ++ Why the <math> - tag at all? I don't mean abolish it, but in some in=
stanc=3D
> ++ es it =3D
> ++ =

> ++ can be quite unnecessary and annoying:
> ++ =

> ++   If <math> a &le; b </math> then ...
> ++ =

> ++ should be as valid as
> ++   =3D
> ++ =

> ++   If a &le; b then ...
> =

> The advantage is that with using <math>, a reader (and also an author)
> can choose a different rendering. For instance, one can choose to
> have the a and b in your example be displayed in italics, while the
> context is normal. The choice would be gone as soon as you leave out
> the <math>. =

> =

> =

> Abigail =

> =


I agree with you there, and was aware of the issue, but I still maintain =
that =

the author should be given the opportunity to omit the <math> tags around=
 =

'math symbols' such as &le; - definitely not all uses of this symbol are =
in =

mathematical contexts - imagine the rendering from a speech synthesizer w=
hich =

makes the audience aware of the fact that this is math markup as opposed =
to =

regular text.
Another good example are the greek letters:(how would your stylesheet ren=
der =

this?!):
<math>&alpha; &beta; &gamma; </math> are the first letters of the greek =

alphabet and a priori have nothing to do with mathematics though they are=
 =

often used there.
-- =

James =D8. Baum
MA104 Line=E6r Algebra Fjernundervisningsprosjektet -
MA104 Linear Algebra 'Open University Project'
Institute of Mathematics, University of Oslo, Norway
http://www.math.uio.no/~ma104/