# RE: pages with MathML

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 08:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3309.217.124.69.209.1145028439.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>
To: <www-math@w3.org>

Romeo Anghelache,

It is rather surprising that one can claim that HERMES is generating
semantic content, when articles generated from HERMES looks like

--------------------- REAL CODE
<…>
<p>
</p>
<h3>2001-07-09</h3>
<p>
</p>
<p class="abstract">
<p>
<span class="fn"> </span><span class="fb">Abstract </span><span
class="fn">We review the present status of black hole thermodynamics. Our
review includes discussion of classical black hole thermodynamics, Hawking
radiation from black holes, the generalized second law, and the issue
of entropy bounds. A brief survey also is given of approaches to the
calculation of black hole entropy. We conclude with a discussion of
some unresolved open issues. </span>
</p>
</p>
<p>
<…>

-----------------------------------------------------------

Is the use of empty paragraphs for simulating layouts, headings of level 3
for encoding dates, and others points you mean by “semantic”?

Do you name “semantic” the next encoding generated by HERMES

<h3><a href="http://surubi.fis.uncor.edu/reula">Oscar A. Reula</a></h3>?

Uff! Author encoded as heading of the document!

Moreover, the mathematical code presents in the articles generated by
Hermes are not verifying accessibility, structure is far from good, and
several equations are rendered via “tricks”.

For example, in “Hyperbolic methods for Einstein’s Equations”

[http://hermes.aei.mpg.de/1998/3/article.xhtml]

\epsilon _{abcd} is the Levi-Civita tensor corresponding to the physical
metric

The underlying math is not encoded via tensors but

<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML">
<msub>
<mrow>
<mi>&epsilon;</mi>
</mrow>
<mrow>
<mi>a</mi>
<mi>b</mi>
<mi>c</mi>
<mi>d</mi>
</mrow>
</msub>
[/itex]

<span class="fi"> </span><span class="fn">is the Levi-Civita tensor
corresponding to the physical metric, </span>

Sorry, but I cannot call that "good code", because the Tensor is being
rendered via a ***visual*** forcing of subscripts instead via multiscript
tag of MathML 2.0

And what about the redundancy of MathML ½ in equation 2? and what about
the "terrorific" code of equation 3?

Do you name “semantic” content to encoding of “integral on s” like

<mo>&#8747;</mo><mi>d</mi><mi>s</mi>?

(equation 10 of [http://hermes.aei.mpg.de/1998/1/article.xhtml])

Do you consider correct the l_Planck of equation (24)? Do you know for
what was <mtext> designed?

And what about the equation (25) of

[http://hermes.aei.mpg.de/2005/2/article.xhtml]?

The Gamma *there* is a tensor, but is encoded as subscript ab and
superscript j with several redundant mrows.

Is that you call good semantic content?

And what about the metric equation just after the section 2.1? This is one
of my favourites: accesibility, structure, "semantics", encoding, and
rendering are all wrong.

One find a line element ds^2. If my math is correct ds^2 = (ds)^2 but the
code appear in the journal article generated via HERMES is

<mi>d</mi>
<msup>
<mrow>
<mi>s</mi>
</mrow>
<mrow>
<mn>2</mn>
</mrow>
</msup>

That is, d{s}^2 (or 2s ds), which is VERY different from (ds)^2 is
supposed to be encoded via your "semantic" approach.

and all that even ignoring that one would type the differential using the
MathML entity instead of identifier "d".

Really do I need to continue writing samples of incorrect output you are
serving to the world?

I wrote to you in the past, because I was critizing HERMES approach and I
consider that when one is critized, one would be informed for one can

That is also the reason I said that about NAG and New York Journal of
Mathematics recently I consider that people would obtain opportunity to