- From: Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>
- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:16:04 -0400
- To: www-math@w3.org
juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: [snip] > > I said in a previous communication that the phrase "Elsevier adopts > MathML" was to be very debatable. It may be interesting to note here that > in last Elsevier’s CEP 1.1.0-1.1.3 (the core of Elsevier’s 2005 XML DTDs > family) > > 238 > U > 92 That sure looks like chemistry to me, not math. Elsevier may have reasons for not adopting an explicit chemical markup language, but using an arbitrary text pre sub/superscript markup is arguably _less_ wrong than using math markup, whether MathML or any other. Suggesting to use math to markup uranium, is simply using the fact that math has handy machinery for dealing with scripts --- the thing you're marking up isn't math. It's the same as using math to add a "nd" superscript to the 2 in "2nd edition". Ie. it's an abuse, albeit a common one. It may well be that MathML's markup for scripts is less than ideal, but examples from chemistry aren't convincing. -- bruce.miller@nist.gov http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/
Received on Monday, 17 April 2006 17:16:24 UTC