From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>

Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:31:07 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3495.217.124.69.228.1153560667.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:31:07 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3495.217.124.69.228.1153560667.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Re: Math on the web without MathML (CSS 2.1 rendering for HTML and XML) Mark P. Line wrote: > > 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. It would be boring repeating again and again and again. I can cite again (one of my July messages) some quotes from a recent workshop on MathML for STM: <blockquote> The utility of MathML to enhance searching and improve accessibility of online mathematical content has not yet been proven. </blockquote> <blockquote> Searching of mathematically laden content by the mathematics it contains is a complex issue. It's not altogether clear whether the level of description implicit in content (semantic) and/or presentational MathML is sufficient to support robust searching on the mathematics contained in a resource. </blockquote> <blockquote> It's also not yet certain that readers and other accessibility tools will be able to exploit MathML effectively to make the mathematics embedded in a resource more accessible, though that seems a safer bet. </blockquote> <blockquote> While MathML is being adopted (at least experimentally) behind the scenes -- e.g., as an exchange format for interoperation between applications like Mathematica and Maple and in the editorial workflow of scholarly journals, it has not been widely adopted by the authors of educational and scholarly mathematical content. </blockquote> Of course, you can disagree and then add lot of fields were MathML is successful for you. That would be great for all of us here. Maybe we would first begin to analize that “sucesfull” mean. Maybe I would remember you that MathML is about communicating something: mathematics. Presentation MathML is about visual rendering, whereas content MathML would be about transfer of precise mathematical content (not meaning). Ok, let us focus then on that: communication. I am just curious how you (or your software) would encode next basic expressions 1) a + b 2) sin π 3) -5 4) ∫ sin ω dω 5) 3/4 6) sqrt(x)/(y^2 -1) 7) -x 8) ∫_a^b ω dω 9) x >> 0 10) <p>My favourite Greek letter is β</p> 11) x_i = 5 12) {}^7log x 13) (x+3)^2 14) a/b; a=3, b=4 15) 123/456 16) (&partial;ρ / &partial;t) = L ρ + ε(&rho - ρ_0) in content (or parallel) MathML and how would I (or my software) interpret it? Of course, this is more than a theoretical exercise; take as practical exercise the internal and or external communication of research results at some official body. > Why would I be interested in CSS rendering, or any other kind of rendering? Why not? In fact, without rendering how can you read my message here? The 100% of math books in the University’s library are rendering math on paper... > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Polymathix > San Antonio, TX Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)Received on Saturday, 22 July 2006 09:31:19 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:59 GMT
*