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: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3363.>
To: <www-math@w3.org>

Mark P. Line wrote:
> I recently ran a comparison between Java and Python. I installed the Java
> compiler and the Python compiler/interpreter.
> I've had to reject Java out of hand because it can't do the things that
> Python can do -- in fact, it can't do anything at all. It kept telling me
> there was no JVM installed. Python doesn't require a JVM, and I wanted to
> compare Java to Python, not Java + JVM to Python. So Java is out and
> Python is in.

And then we compare pure CSS with (MathML + fonts + plugins) and if CSS
cannot render some stretchy constructs, then CSS is out.

Or would CSS will be improved by a JS module generating large brackets
from fragments before comparison?

That is, the main idea is you can add anything you want to the MathML side
(fonts, plugins, conversors, input sintaxes, zips, XSLT, special and DTDs,
entities...) but only pure CSS is left to the CSS side.

Why do not restrict also to CSS 1 doing the comparison still more easy for
the MathML side?

> I've been posting about 10 messages a day to Sun's community forums about
> this problem, but they just don't listen.

Maybe you would send 10 messages to the CSS list explaining your idea on
why CSS is whole mess and presentational HTML is not.

> There's an ambiguity here. Are you claiming (a) that people choose the way
> the screen looks when math is rendered with CSS over the way it looks when
> MathML is used for rendering, or (b) that CSS is used more frequently by
> more people for rendering math than is MathML?

Not one not other. When people look with their own eyes that CSS can
render with enough quality many math they prefer CSS over MathML because
many motives, not only rendering.

> If you're claiming (a), so what? The way the screen looks is only one
> factor, and for many people, not even the most important factor.

Hum, I already said sometinhg like this both here and in the WHATWG list.
I even offered a link to biomedical site using CSS for people can see the
quality some people consider good enough.

>> Including other people has said
>> about the acceptance of MathML off-line and rejection on-line (remember
>> that MathML was designed for the web).
> RDF was also designed for the web. So what?

i) If you design markup for online and is rejected for that use then...

ii) Still the goal of online math may be covered.

> I'm quite happy that MathML has been inducted into offline content use,
> because I don't want to have to work in a standards vacuum for that bit of
> the puzzle.

As already said, there is absolutely no problem for usage of MathML
off-line. You can use presentational markup in your home if is your

> But whereas I am citing data and statistics from third parties with no a
> priori economic interest in MathML, you and Miner are citing data from
> Design Science. Data is just a list to consumers and says nothing about
> trend or global percentages.

> For those of us with a connection to the marketplace, the growth of a list
> of installations says much more than nothing.

A list for (main) off-line usage.

And Google Trends, and statistics for online usage presented this year by
Huckison saying nothing, true?

>-- Mark
> Mark P. Line
> Polymathix
> San Antonio, TX

Juan R.

Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 16:04:53 UTC

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