W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > March 2006

Formal query about WG role and MathML-FAQ

From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:18:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3629.217.124.69.243.1142266738.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>
To: <www-math@w3.org>, <"mailto:aldiaz"@us.ibm.com>, <"mailto:ion"@ams.org>, <mf@w3.org>, <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>


Dear sirs,

I began the development of a website based in XHTML 1.1 strict + MathML
2.0 some time ago. See

http://www.canonicalscience.com/en/researchzone/nanothermodynamics.xml

or

http://www.canonicalscience.com/en/researchzone/canonical.xml

for examples.

Initially, i used tools from the MathML implementation page, but none of
them fit all our requirements. In fact, some famous editors offered wrong
output in some of our tests when compared to free tools. Finally, some
equations may be fine-tuned by hand. But the big problem is with next
stage of website. I then decided direct input for the math, but since
MathML is too verbose, this implies development of an input sintax.

In the Technical MathML Issues of the FAQ one can read

{query}
Does the WG still intend to develop a short form input syntax as part of
MathML ?

{answer}
During the development of MathML it has become clear that the requirements
on input syntaxes vary so widely that no single syntax will satisfy all
users. Various members of the WG have developed input syntaxes for their
particular tools. The WG will provide technical advice to all those who
are involved in the development of input syntaxes for MathML-aware tools.
Input syntaxes do not form part of the core MathML recommendation.

Then i contacted with several authors of the MathML specification and
received none reply about this. Next, i submitted an official plea to the
MathML list.

Choosing a notation for CanonMath (review of MathML)

[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/2006Feb/0012.html]

Until now, i have received none reply from WG. I find just curioust to
read, for instance, David Carlishe replies to others MathML topics
surrounding my post of 17 February, whereas ignoring my own.

is it the ignoring of emails and mailing list posts the usual attitude for
the MathML specification?

An official attitude from mine will be taken this weeek and submited to
Canonical Science Today.


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 16:19:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:58 GMT