From: Ian Hutchinson <hutch@psfc.mit.edu>

Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 00:17:55 -0500

Message-ID: <367B3703.A5926FB4@psfc.mit.edu>

To: www-math@w3.org, www-amaya@w3.org

Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 00:17:55 -0500

Message-ID: <367B3703.A5926FB4@psfc.mit.edu>

To: www-math@w3.org, www-amaya@w3.org

Since there has been a lot of theorizing on MathML lately, I thought I would explore the practical performance of the existing renderers. I wrote a little article that can be seen on http://hutchinson.belmont.ma.us/tth/mmlreview/ The abstract is attached below. If you have any comments or corrections, I would be happy to hear them, if they are polite! Comparative Review of World-Wide-Web Mathematics Renderers. Ian Hutchinson Abstract I review three available means of browsing mathematical documents on the web. Two consist of Browsers with MathML rendering built in: Amaya, sponsored by W3C, and e-Lite, a Java-based commercial offering from IceSoft in collaboration with WebEQ. The comparison is with Netscape rendering mathematics created by the TeX to HTML translator TtH in HTML4.0. The MathML browsers compare very unfavorably with Netscape. e-Lite is extremely slow and consumes vast resources on the client platform. Its equation alignment is poor and it can't cope with large equations. Amaya is significantly faster rendering, is more robust, and has much smaller footprint. Its equation alignment is much better but it lacks support for most attributes of the Presentation MathML standard, including ``bold'', limiting its usefulness. Netscape, with minor settings adjustments on X and Mac platforms, renders equations produced with TtH at full text speed with more complete support of symbols and styles than either of the others. At present, therefore, Netscape has the overwhelming advantage, but of course, it is not rendering MathML.Received on Friday, 18 December 1998 23:18:31 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:28 UTC
*