From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:41:22 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3350.217.124.69.242.1153150882.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:41:22 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3350.217.124.69.242.1153150882.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Mark P. Line wrote: > >juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: >> >> MathML developers ignored CSS (it is obvious), providing us a markup was >> CSS unfriendly, generating lot of headaches to developers. > > It's not obvious to me that they ignored CSS. Were you present at the > meetings, or what makes you think they ignored it? Well i cannot convice you if you cannot. >> Of course CSS is limited (presentation MathML is also) but the group >> would stop from spreading myths about like only p-MathML is good or >> render good. > > So, what's your vested interest in CSS? (I have none, so I can afford to > be agnostic. But knowing yours would help me relativize the parts of this > discussion that sound like they're out to lunch.) Well, i like non-presentational strict markup and would be ugly using presentational, structurally invalid, and non-accesible MathML. My users/visitors also dislike plugins and fonts and specific browsers (e.g. from Mac or Unix comunities). >> The group was familiar with rendering but not with rendering on browsers >> via CSS, not with other stuff is cause that MathML is not popular in >> despite of many publicity efforts. > > What metric are you using to assess the popularity of MathML? Already cited some of them here. I will not repeat. >> XSL-FO has been strongly rejected for the web (of course, you can use of >> off-line). >> Only MathML would remain isolated from the rest, with the group >> encouraging and endorsing the spread of presenational markup omn the web, >> do you know. > > Well, maybe not *just* MathML. I've been in favor of presentational markup > in HTML since I started using it in 1993, and I've never used CSS for real > work in my life. And I'm not alone, at least not out here in the trenches. > So my prediction is that the W3C will ultimately recognize their mistake > in shifting presentation from HTML to CSS, that they will start shifting > it back, and that finally nobody will need to use CSS for much of > anything. Interesting! This would explain some of your replies at this list. >> Some of us prefer follow more standard design with content and structural >> markup for mathematics and rendering via stylesheet: CSS. > > And some prefer to do otherwise. Is that a problem? Contrary to some MathML folks, we let any to use they prefer. The problem is when MathML is not satisfying the goals promised or when MathML folks devote many time and efforts to critize the limitations of alternative approaches by others (MathML folks have critized TeX, plugins, GIFs, HTML-table, and ISO 12083) whereas do not doing the same at the MathML side. I cited many examples of this attitute. For instance how the rendering position of a "+" in a CSS approach can be critized by a MathML folk but the same position in one of MathML softwares listed at the MathML site is not critized (even unnoticed). > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Polymathix > San Antonio, TX Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 15:41:33 UTC

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