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 ≤ b </math> then ... > ++ = > ++ should be as valid as > ++ =3D > ++ = > ++ If a ≤ 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 ≤ - 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>α β γ </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/