From: Robert Miner <robertm@dessci.com>

Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 15:58:13 -0700

Message-ID: <D1EFB337111B674B8F1BE155B01C6DD6D423A0@franklin.corp.dessci>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 15:58:13 -0700

Message-ID: <D1EFB337111B674B8F1BE155B01C6DD6D423A0@franklin.corp.dessci>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Hi. I noticed an error of my own I need to correct. Below I claim there are millions of documents that use MathML. I should have said millions of pages. --Robert Robert Miner Director, New Product Development - our address has changed - Design Science, Inc. 140 Pine Avenue, 4th Floor Long Beach, California 90802 USA Tel: (651) 223-2883 Fax: (651) 292-0014 robertm@dessci.com www.dessci.com ~ Makers of MathType, MathFlow, MathPlayer, WebEQ, Equation Editor, TexAide ~ -----Original Message----- From: www-math-request@w3.org [mailto:www-math-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robert Miner Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 2:50 PM To: juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com Cc: www-math@w3.org Subject: Correcting misperceptions about MathML usage Juan, The MathML specification is 10 years old, and has gone through four versions as a W3C Recommendation. There are dozens of pieces of software that seriously implement it, and millions of documents that use it. For a credible, responsible standards organization such as W3C, that imposes strenuous backwards compatibility constraints. It means among other things that changing something as fundamental as the representation of scripts is no longer feasible. The only changes that can be considered viable at this point in the lifespan of MathML are incremental. I believe you have a faulty impression about the usage of, and hence the constraints upon, MathML at this point in its lifecyle. You wrote It is interesting that almost all of academic publishers are ignoring MathML promises and using other alternatives (at my current knowledge only _Blackwell_ publisher is using MathML). For instance, the renowned _Nature_ is working with ISO 12083. However, that is false. Among major technical publishers, I know that Reed Elsevier, the American Chemical Society, the American Physics Society, Houghton-Mifflin, McGraw-Hill, Wiley, and the US Patent Office, to name a few, all use MathML in at least some of their publication workflows. Similarly, you seem unaware of the use of MathML in enterprise publishing, but a short list of companies that I know are using MathML includes Airbus, Boeing, Schlumberger, Becthel-Bettis, Pratt and Whitney, Lexus-Nexus, NAG, SPSS and others. Beyond that, MathML is used extensively as a backend technology by a number of educational technology vendors including course management systems such as WebCT, eCollege, and Blackboard, automated assessment vendors such as Questionmark Perception, Brownstone and ETS, and other educational service and software vendors. Another area where MathML is playing a significant role is accessibility. The DAISY consortium of accessibility technology vendors and advocates is in the process of incorporating MathML into the DAISY file format. Consortium partners are already hard at work looking at adding MathML-based accessibility solutions to their software, and educational publishers in many contexts in the US are compelled by law to make accessible materials available in the DAISY format. This will have the effect of making mathematics in a large body of content effectively and seamlessly accessible and widely available to those with print disabilities for the first time. As you may have seen on the list yesterday, now there are even effective tools for using MathML right-to-left in Arabic-language documents. In all of these arenas, there is substantial and rapidly growing use of MathML, and W3C has a responsibility keep MathML stable for all of these stakeholders. As a consequence, as I stated above, the only changes that will occur in MathML for the foreseeable future will be small, incremental ones that maintain backward compatibility and offer existing users a smooth, non-disruptive upgrade path. At the same time, it is true that the area where MathML has had the least impact is as a hand-authored format for academics and hobbyists publishing directly to the web. This is obviously an area that you care very much about. But as a standards organization, W3C cannot and should not favor the interests of one particular interest group over others. This is particularly true, as I explained in an earlier message, since W3C is directly accountable to it dues-paying member organizations, and only indirectly accountable to individuals with no official standing, such as yourself. If you want to work on devising a good input syntax for MathML that meets your needs, and to present your ideas on this list for comment, you are welcome to do so. But I encourage you take the trouble to understand the interests of the stakeholders in the discussion, and the constraint that apply when considering changes to MathML. Beyond that, I must insist that everyone posting to this list respect the conventions of civil discourse. Name-calling and insinuation are unacceptible, and will result in the poster being blocked if disruptive behavior persists. --Robert Robert Miner W3C Math Interest Group co-chair Director, New Product Development - our address has changed - Design Science, Inc. 140 Pine Avenue, 4th Floor Long Beach, California 90802 USA Tel: (651) 223-2883 Fax: (651) 292-0014 robertm@dessci.com www.dessci.com ~ Makers of MathType, MathFlow, MathPlayer, WebEQ, Equation Editor, TexAide ~ -----Original Message----- From: www-math-request@w3.org [mailto:www-math-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:21 PM To: www-math@w3.org Subject: Re: Technical reasons for some options taken on design of MathML Re: Technical reasons for some options taken on design of MathML Bruce Miller wrote: > > juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: >> What is the objective of repeating I already said? > > I'm wondering the same thing. That is your great contribution since February? I wonder more still. > juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: >> Any case the point is not possible misunderstanding about above >> ASCII art did mean. > > The fact that everyone is asking what it meant and interpreting > it differently than you apparently intended just might be a > clue that it, in fact, _is_ possible to misunderstand. But the point is not about misunderstanding a possible ASCII art. But by remarking just that unimportant detail again you carefully ignore the real point of discussion; THAT point, which you are contributing with zero ideas and data. In fact, it has been well explained that ASCII art did mean, but you continue emphasizing just that now. I wonder. The important point (you carefully erased from my previous reply) is that the ASCII art cannot be encoded in MathML 2.0 but can be in ISO 12083. Your noise reply cannot change that fact. Sorry if that was your attempt! > Being a student, to varying degrees of success, of > a few foreign languages, I'm generally not given > to criticizing non-native speakers of english. > However, I think that your comments would be more > productive --- assuming you're actually > trying to have a constructive discussion --- if > you would spend a bit more effort (1) attempting > to understand the explanations that have already > been given to you and (2) explaining carefully > and concisely exactly what you are looking for. You can continue to add noise to discussion instead of providing solutions for problems are discussed here. > Ranting, yelling, insulting and repeating yourself > ever louder, all the while claiming that you couldn't > possibly be misunderstood really isn't that productive. > Nor does it reflect well on either you or the > "Canonical Science" project. I already suspected this kind of reply from you. You are providing absolutely no serious thinking about nothing has been recently debated: You are proposing none proposal, interesting discussion, technical details, etc. since February. Again you continue with that politics of add noise to discussion or focus just in details very far from mathematical issues debated. You have provided none alternative, none evaluation of February questions, none thought about scripts, tokens, input syntaxes, scientific requirements, semantics, etc. This thread has a beatiful title: Technical reasons for some options taken on design of MathML. Your contribution to technical details has been one can read in your previous message. Your reply is full of technical details ;-) I do not need add anything more to your recent "political" message. You are self-explicative... > -- > bruce.miller@nist.gov > http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/ Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 22:58:26 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:37 UTC
*