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

Re: Math on the web without MathML (CSS 2.1 rendering for HTML and XML)

From: Mark P. Line <mark@polymathix.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:43:10 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4477.>
To: www-math@w3.org

juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote:
> 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.

Right, it is not maintained by the W3C. But it is recommended highly by
the W3C, since they have a link to it right below the link to this list on
their Math homepage. I assume they did that so that posts along the lines
of "You should have done all this completely differently, you know." would
be taken elsewhere. But I'm only guessing.

My point was that it is simply unrealistic (read: rhetorically
ineffective) not to expect this list to be oriented around MathML, which
is what I understood Patrick to be saying as well.

For my own part, I wish there were at least three official MathML mailing
lists: one for strategic standards discussion, one for the presentation
track and one for the content track. Somebody like me could then subscribe
to the strategy list and the content list and avoid discussions of
rendering big parens in Lynx 1.0 or the advantages of exponents over
radical notation (one being that you can render in Lynx using those two
little star thingies.....).

> 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>

Yes. As I said, this list is not just for MathML, strictly speaking. It
remains true that it is MathML-centered in practice.

>>> 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.

So you want it to be both improved and replaced? How is that a
cost-effective strategy?

-- Mark

Mark P. Line
San Antonio, TX
Received on Saturday, 15 July 2006 17:43:15 UTC

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