From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>

Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:54:53 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3150.217.124.88.243.1152971693.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:54:53 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3150.217.124.88.243.1152971693.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Mark P. Line wrote: > > 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. Well, I think that WebMath is not w3c list. Moreover from [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/] <blockquote> www-math is a public mailing list, maintained by W3C, for comments and discussion on MathML, HTML and math on the Web. </blockquote> >> 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? Both. > If the former, I missed > it and you might have to restate your suggestions. It would be difficult to restate suggestions and criticism of last months. I suspect that MathML WG has stored each one of messages of the mailing list for carefull off-line analysis. >From memory, I can point now some difficulties and annoyances: 1) technical limitations of script model (base redundancy in generalized structures) and ampliations 2) lack of an adequate input syntax (see original CanonMath program) 3) unified solution to visual and aural rendering of special tokens as differentials, between others. 4) why large publishers as Elsevier are using an in-house modification of MathML instead the official recommendation. There is material enough for a sound MathML 3 specification. > If the latter, you > might consider posting to WebMath instead of here. Your subject line does > suggest the latter, doesn't it? Subject line is not accurate even being large! Note that the CSS rendering can be used with content MathML approach also. And note that can be used with HTML. Both fit in the www-math list. > -- 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, TX Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)Received on Saturday, 15 July 2006 13:55:13 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:38 UTC
*