From: Robert Miner <robertm@dessci.com>

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:31:17 -0700

Message-ID: <D1EFB337111B674B8F1BE155B01C6DD6D42661@franklin.corp.dessci>

To: "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>, <whitelynx@operamail.com>

Cc: <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:31:17 -0700

Message-ID: <D1EFB337111B674B8F1BE155B01C6DD6D42661@franklin.corp.dessci>

To: "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>, <whitelynx@operamail.com>

Cc: <www-math@w3.org>

Hi. > If someone could tell me where these millions of pages using MathML reside, it would simplify testing process a lot. > > I don't know where they all are, but there are several hundred documents here > http://www.nag.com/numeric/CL/CLdocumentation.asp Most of the MathML content I know of it not currently published on the Web. It exists in backend production processes, which is why I clarified I really meant pages and not documents. For example, I think four or five journals of the American Physical Society have been produced using MathML for the last 2 or 3 years. As a very rough estimate, in one issue of one of those journals in a month, I see about 50 articles with a length of around 15 pages on average. That would amount to something like 90,000 pages after 3 years. As David pointed out, the US Patent office has been churning out 1000 equations a week in patent applications for 6 or 7 years. If there are 10 equation per page on average (a wild guess, hopefully on the conservative side since I dimly remember from Karleen's talk he was only talking about display equations) that is 100 pages of MathML /wk for a total of something like another 30,000 pages. Similarly with the very substantial enterprise publishing operations run internally by companies like Airbus and others. I won't run through my whole back-of-the-envelope calculation that lead are millions of pages of MathML in existence, but the above examples ought to suffice to show that even if I'm wrong, I'm not wildly wrong. That said, it is clear that what people in this discussion are interested in are examples of MathML published on the web. In order to have a ready list of examples, a couple colleagues and I started a list for our own use at http://www.listible.com/list/web-sites-that-serve-mathml I can't vouch for the accuracy of what is there now, but it might be enough of a start to be worth sharing. I would be very interested in seeing other people add their own sites using MathML to the list. Also, I know several groups working on math search are gearing up to systematically crawl the web for MathML content, and they may have interesting stats to report about MathML published to the web soon. If the idea of maintaining a list of sites that publish MathML catches on, we could easily add a link to the list from the MathML homepage. --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 David Carlisle Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:24 AM To: whitelynx@operamail.com Cc: www-math@w3.org Subject: Re: Technical reasons for some options taken on design of MathML > If someone could tell me where these millions of pages using MathML reside, it would simplify testing process a lot. I don't know where they all are, but there are several hundred documents here http://www.nag.com/numeric/CL/CLdocumentation.asp > Authoring tool makers constitute the only part of MathML community > that could be happy with artificially bloated syntax. Markup that being unreadable and > unprocessable by humans, forces people to buy WYSIWYG toys, is perfect solution > for commercial software makers, who if I am not mistaken played crusial role in making > "political decision" that resulted current MathML syntax. For what it's worth none of the MathML expressions in the documents on the NAG site have been processed by a WYSIWIG editor. Most of the older ones were converted from TeX, and current maintenance and new authoring is done directly in a more or less mathml syntax directly in emacs. The extensions from mathml used internally mainly relate to content mathml rather than presentation, as the set of empty elements designed for common "K-12 functions" doesn't really apply to the functions in our library, and it's just more convenient to use <apply><Ai/> than <apply><csymbol>Ai</csymbol> but this shorthand is easily expanded as part of the general transformation from our in-house DTD to XHTML+MathML. Converting our in-house documents from SGML-with-TeX-math-fragments to XML-with-MathML-math-fragments was of course a lot of work, but has shown a lot of benefit, the mathematics is far more consistently marked up now (TeX is so forgiving to authors:-) and the documents can be far more easily re-purposed. Mathematical expressions originally just intended for documentation are now used in code generation. Rather than just documenting constraints on some parameter, we can generate the code that checks the constraint. Note this is far easier in MathML where every operator is explictly tagged than in some suggested alternatives that make far more use of inline untagged text. The implication that the Working Group (Currently Interest Group) is dominated by makers of Commercial Wysywig systems is simply false. I've hardly ever used a WYSYWYG System and certainly have never written one. The Working Group has always had strong representation from Universities, Math Societies and standards bodies, potential users of mathml documents, as well as Computer Algebra systems and yes, makers of commercial math editors. One of the main reasons that I originally got involved with this project was that I was interested in the possibilites that could be achieved by getting old TeX hackers like myself in the same room as people from Microsoft, Maple, Mathematica, AMS, Design Science (MathType), and many other interested organisations and companies and comming up with a syntax for mathematical expressions on which everyone could agree. (Which isn't of course the same as saying every member of the committee thought every aspect of MathML was perfect) > From the first glance it looks like I have to pay more for bandwidth > (MathML markup is several times heavier), Experience shows (despite your impressive efforts with CSS-only rendering) that people are and were not happy with the typesetting quality of such a mechanism and in practice if they don't use MathML they tend to use TeX generated bitmap images. You typically (but probably not always) _save_ space by switching from bitmap images to MathML. You certainly gain a lot in typesetting quality for both screen and print rendering from the browser. > If number of MathML content on web > will grow significantly it will be impossible to make drastical changes in MathML Mathematics in US Patent documents has been coded in MathML for some years (this was a very large number of documents growing at a very fast rate when I last heard the details some years back) http://www.mathmlconference.org/2000/Talks/karleen/ there are other similar large organisations (including NAG) with large numbers of MathML documents. Do you really think making incompatible changes to any language after 8 years public use is something to be considered lightly? Removing elements isn't really an option, if necessary, new features could be added and old ones "deprecated" but look at HTML, That's had deprecated elements for years and it's not clear if the experiment in html4 (copied into xhtml 1.0) of having parallel strict and transitional versions with and without the deprecated features was a success, or whether it just spread confusion. David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2006 16:31:31 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:58 GMT
*