From: Mark P. Line <mark@polymathix.com>

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:39:42 -0500 (CDT)

Message-ID: <1264.69.91.14.68.1152815982.squirrel@webmail8.pair.com>

To: www-math@w3.org

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:39:42 -0500 (CDT)

Message-ID: <1264.69.91.14.68.1152815982.squirrel@webmail8.pair.com>

To: www-math@w3.org

juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: > > Do not forget that this list is for math on the web (not exclusively for > MathML). CSS approach is an alternative may be promoted and I am doing > just that. Although what you say is true strictly speaking, it is not true in practice. www-math is the W3C's main (only?) mailing list for MathML. There is another mailing list, WebMath (see the link at w3.org/Math/), which is *explicitly* about math on the web in general. > If MathML authors can devote time to review the flaws of other approaches > as GIF, tables, LaTeX plugins, 12083, etc. also we can review flaws of > MathML, No? Are you reviewing flaws of MathML in order to suggest improvements to it, or in order to argue for an alternative approach? If the former, I missed it and you might have to restate your suggestions. If the latter, you might consider posting to WebMath instead of here. Your subject line does suggest the latter, doesn't it? -- Mark P.S. With apologies for sudden delurking without prior introduction. My interest in MathML is structural, because it's embedded in CellML. So I'm pretty much agnostic about rendering issues. Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TXReceived on Friday, 14 July 2006 19:50:15 GMT

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