W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > April 2006

Re: pages with MathML

From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:36:20 +0200
Message-ID: <444015D4.4080307@activemath.org>
To: juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com
Cc: www-math@w3.org

Juan,

I see you are aiming to expect from classical authors that produce TeX 
sources that they provide a fully semantically-correct formula.

I wish you would be right but I can assure you that making it possible 
for authors to be both satisfied with the presentation of their content 
as well as with the underlying semantic is a challenge that is current 
research. And what could even be more of a challenge is to let the 
authors realize what the semantic could mean to them!

paul

juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote:
> And as one would wait due to several flaws of MathML, the pages with
> MathML are being cited here and I have revised are not correct. The
> structure of equations is not accurate in all equation I have revised, the semantic is incorrect also, one finds several tricks for rendering, etc.
> What is more, the accessibility of MathML formulas are being presented
> here (and I have revised) is poor that if using the old HTML+GIF model in several cases.
>   
Don't ever propose that model again it is just wrong and limited, please.
(or propose scanned tiff-pages where you're sure no-one will bother)
> I did a simple review of incorrect output was being presented by HERMES.
> The XHTML+MathML code was very wrong. I am doing a serious review of very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very incorrect MathML code is being served by self-proclaimed technologically more advanced site. Details in a future Canonical Science Today.
>
> I will add review of code at NAG and New York Journal of Mathematics in a future “issue”.
>   
Received on Friday, 14 April 2006 21:36:29 GMT

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