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

Re: Math and MathML [large publishers' use]

From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 04:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3162.>
To: <www-math@w3.org>

Patrick Ion said:
> Dear Juan,
> You also write:
> 4) why large publishers as Elsevier are using an in-house
> modification of
> MathML instead the official recommendation.
> Large publishers often use customizations of software and specs in-
> house,
> as do many small ones as well.  ISO 12083 was widely criticized in
> public as
> unworkable in production streams without extensive modification. That's
> part of the reason that MathML was welcomed by publishers.


1) ISO 12083 is a big subject. Mathematical part of ISO 12083 are a few

2) I never saw criticism to the mathematical stuff as <fraction>, <den>,
<radical>. For instance <sup>, <inf> and the model for prescripts continue
being used by Elsevier in his new XML workflow (look example of markup I
provided here).

3) Yes, ISO 12083 contains problems but can be admended (apparently a new
standard will be prepared by the ISO commitee) and used in its strengh
points (some would exists :-) instead reinventing the wheel (MathML WG

4) Main lack of interest by publishers on ISO 12083 was because the
standard born just when SGML began to lack popularity in favor of the new
XML paradigm.

5) Even today, the old ISO 12083 is able to encode mathematics that MathML
cannot, e.g. certain script structures using less tags and more simple
data model than p-MathML.

> I'd be interested as to the source of your comments about the internal
> details of Elsevier's publishing stream.

My citing of Elsevier was because next MathML 3 could introduce the
in-house modifications (or part of). Standards may work and in-house
modifications indicate weakness.

> Do you suggest that all STM
> material is treated the same by them, or are there variations over the
> range of offerings?

Please be more explicit and clear with you query

> 	Patrick

Juan R.

Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 11:52:40 UTC

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