From: William F. Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 10:09:22 -0400 (EDT)

Message-Id: <200005011409.KAA07565@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

To: www-math@w3.org

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 10:09:22 -0400 (EDT)

Message-Id: <200005011409.KAA07565@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

To: www-math@w3.org

> since the group is too pre-occupied with its apparent success. I am also an outsider, and I do not see the pre-occupation of which you speak. If "success" is to be measured at least in part by extant use, MathML not there yet. > "MathML 2.0 is not to be seen as a standard for the use of mathematics > on the computer and internet but rather as a discussion paper in the > context of the development of such a standard. Currently there are > various systems for doing mathematics with the computer, and this > creates quite some confusion. MathML is something like an "object" language to which "source" is compiled. There is no standard "source". Whereas as an "object" compiled from "C" leads to a program, an "object" in MathML does not. It only provides description that is highly amenable for action by a program. The presentation markup is intended to please browsing clients, while the content markup is for more sophisticated clients. (A client is a program.) > This confusion is increased by the issues of copyright and ownership > of language since many such programs have a commercial basis. The > advise should be that scientists co-operate into solving this > confusion, and that they establish a clear standard for the use of > mathematics on the computer and the internet. Traditional authoring habits will need to change some. While I think that the extent of such change is not so large as others think, I do think that it will be quite difficult to bring authors along at the level of journal articles. It is important to reach that level so that one does not wind up with a system that is K-13 bound. There may be a period of interaction with authors during which we find out what they are willing to create. Given that the current process, dating from the time that math in the HTML-3.0 draft was blown away in mid 1995, is about 5 years old, it is reasonable to expect authoring practice to evolve over at least a decade or two. > Such a standard would be based on these principles: (1) that the > language of mathematics cannot be copyright or owned, and (2) that > there has been developing a practical and elegant standard in and by > the way that people have been using mathematics over the centuries. [ So you agree that the default meaning of symbol juxtaposition is composition of arrows? :-) ] On this I think that there is agreement except that it would be a good thing for dtd's and reference formatters to be copylefted (cf. http://www.gnu.org/). William F. Hammond Dept. of Mathematics & Statistics 518-442-4625 The University at Albany hammond@math.albany.edu Albany, NY 12222 (U.S.A.) http://www.albany.edu/~hammond/ Dept. FAX: 518-442-4731 Never trust an SGML/XML vendor whose web page is not valid HTML. And always support affirmative action on behalf of the finite places.Received on Monday, 1 May 2000 10:10:21 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:30 UTC
*