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

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:35:45 -0500 (CDT)

Message-ID: <6015.69.91.14.68.1153413345.squirrel@webmail7.pair.com>

To: www-math@w3.org

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:35:45 -0500 (CDT)

Message-ID: <6015.69.91.14.68.1153413345.squirrel@webmail7.pair.com>

To: www-math@w3.org

juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: > > Mark P. Line wrote: >> 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. > > And how someone (MathML exceptic) said, a train to nowhere. > "toot, toot" Do you agree with the MathML sceptic who said it's a train to nowhere? Explain your answer. > P.S: I agree with you that the train left the station but would add that > just arrived to off-line publishing of math (e.g. publishers worflow). So, your claim is that off-line publishing of math (or STM, which is probably what you mean) is the only successful application domain for MathML? That's clearly false, so what is your real reason for saying something like that here? I have to assume you're not just trying to stir up random trouble, so I guess I'm at a loss. > Precisely, the CSS rendering is being here proposed _is focused to online > mathematics_ both XML and HTML: Why would I be interested in CSS rendering, or any other kind of rendering? -- Mark Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TXReceived on Thursday, 20 July 2006 16:35:56 UTC

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