From: Mark P. Line <mark@polymathix.com>

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:41:34 -0500 (CDT)

Message-ID: <1294.69.91.14.68.1153240894.squirrel@webmail8.pair.com>

To: www-math@w3.org

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:41:34 -0500 (CDT)

Message-ID: <1294.69.91.14.68.1153240894.squirrel@webmail8.pair.com>

To: www-math@w3.org

juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: > > 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? My point was that it doesn't make any sense to work at both improving and replacing a particular standard at the same time. But to answer your questions at face value: ISO 12083 has an enormous scope compared to that of MathML. It's like asking why is Java being improved today as well as the MasterCook file format. LaTeX and MathML are best practice for different, possibly disjunct, types of problems. They or their successors will continue to co-exist until we AI guys figure out a way to do symbolic computation/manipulation, interactive presentation and production typesetting from a single, human-friendly input scheme (voice? handwriting? VR? telepathy? all of the above?). Even then, they're likely to coexist in backends as conversion targets for a long time after that. > 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. Okay, that makes sense. I didn't understand that you recognized the existence of satisfied MathML users. So you don't mean "replace" MathML in the sense of making it go away entirely, which is what I thought you meant. You only mean "replace" MathML by some other approach for certain tasks, which is indeed compatible with simultaneously improving MathML for the tasks you think it's good for. (I don't think of the latter as "replacement" but rather as "selection".) So, what tasks do you think MathML is good for? With the understanding that you are not a native speaker of English and that I only understand perfectly about 40% of what you write, I'd like to ask if you could please be more clear about which of your suggestions are intended as improvements on MathML and which are intended as guidelines for choosing an alternative approach for certain tasks -- and especially what those tasks are. I'd like to understand the issues better, but I'm a complete agnostic when it comes to the rendering wars. >> 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? As I said above, I hadn't understood that you recognize the existence of satisfied MathML users. If you do, then there may not be a problem. > So far as I can see you are using content MathML. Yes, because it's embedded in CellML and SBML and because I also need to be able to discretize and simulate artificial society and other agent-based models from systems of diffeq's. > Neil recognized that content MathML was not so well-thought. Had the W3C asked *me* to design an XML-conformant math content standard, I'm sure the result would be far superior to content MathML for my purposes. But they didn't, so it's not. But I'll live. Even if I did choose to come up with my own language, I'd still be translating MathML into a subset of it. The train has already left the station. > Some people has strongly rejected content MathML and OpenMath. That's okay. I've strongly rejected perl, C++, Windows, MS-Word, .NET and J2EE, in spite of what the majority would have me do. I'm used to being weird. If I weren't weird, I'd be normal. And then where would I be? > I think that many people think that content MathML is not the correct > way, therefore they would like alternatives. That's fine. If a different standard takes the place of MathML, especially in its embedded role in computational biology standards, I'll be happy to use that instead. -- Mark Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TXReceived on Tuesday, 18 July 2006 16:41:40 UTC

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