From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:08:13 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3333.217.124.69.242.1153148893.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:08:13 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3333.217.124.69.242.1153148893.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Mark P. Line wrote: > juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: > >> Well, the most important feature of standards is that standards may work. >> Standard can be both improved and replaced. Improved when changes are >> minimal and changed when a new paradigm holds. > But not at the same time. Then why was ISO 12083 improved whereas MathML 2 proposed? Why is LaTeX being improved today whereas MathML also? Reply also apply to MathML. Improving of MathML can be useful in small changes satisfying MathML users. Alternative to MathML is needed for users rejecting or not using MathML. > I don't think it's reasonable to expect MathML to become obsolete in any > plannable timeframe, and it happens to be best practice for what I need it > for. Then simply use it. Standards are for that. But many other people dislike MathML and can use another stuff. What is the problem? So far as I can see you are using content MathML. Neil recognized that content MathML was not so well-thought. Some people has strongly rejected content MathML and OpenMath. I cited Fateman’s work for instance. I also cited in this list doubts of some other serious people on the posibilites for content MathML in the STM field. I know mathematicians are working in an alternative approach via “semantic macros”. Let me now cite a fragment from a communication by a mathematician working in a p-MathML tool (24 May 06): <blockquote> BTW I haven't said anything about content-MathML in these papers, because I am not at all sure *this* is "the correct way". </blockquote> I think that many people think that content MathML is not the correct way, therefore they would like alternatives. >> Any case, as "strategy" I am saying is no different from seeing D. >> Carlisle improving TeX-systems with the future LaTeX3, whereas he try to >> replacing TeX on the web by MathML. One day Carlisle can offer us a talk >> about feature sof LaTeX3 and other day he can give another on why >> mathematicians would move from LaTeX to MathML for online math, ok? > How is that analogous to wanting to both improve and replace MathML? TeX is improved for tasks in a domain where it is doing very well. MathML was proposed as alternative for the web and for content oriented markup: two tasks where TeX is not good. Somewhat as you can both improve and replace LaTeX (in different domains), you can both improve and replace MathML. > That's why I wanted to know if you'd rather improve MathML or replace it. Well, depend. Off-line usage? p-MathML works nice. As already explained you can improve it (e.g. adding all or part of current in house modifications in next MathML 3. An input syntax would eliminate many of my current criticism to blogs as that of Distler. E.g. add a LaTeX like input syntax (similar idea becomes from George) with stuff as \pre^2 X generating the correct mprescript structure instead using IteX {}^2 X generating the nonsense <msup><mrow></mrow><mn>2</mn></msup><mi>X</mi> that is poor than using GIF + ALT in an old HTML page. > What's the improvement you're suggesting for representing real numbers in > content MathML? I hope you're not hoping for localizability. If you are, > I'm going to push for localizable Python: Note that R. Miner used just the example of using "tan" for the tangent function in the U.S. and "tg" in France in his presentation of the rationale for content MathML. It is trivial that 3.14 vs 3,14 is as tan(x) vs. tg(x). See reply to Carlisle for basic technical details. >-- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Polymathix > San Antonio, TX Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 15:08:32 UTC

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