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

Re: HTML5 @ W3C

From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 23:52:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3068.>
To: <www-math@w3.org>
Cc: <rbs@maths.uq.edu.au>

rbs@maths.uq.edu.au said:

Your so-called MathML initiative is not MathML; XML applications are being
rethinked as DOM trees as justification for the change; now you claim that
HTML5 is officially going to W3C, waiting what?

Everything, I read from Tim Berness-Lee is about the plans for a new HTML.
Where does he endorse WhatWG HTML 5?

> Juan & The While Lynx: the quote above is not from hixie or me, culled
> from the MathML-in-HTLM5 thread. It is a quote from the man himself.

You cite Tim BL and appeal to his authority. Let me then quote him and
others authorities also:

If you want your site to work with the largest possible audience and
"future proof" it for the coming XML-based web, converting to XHTML is the
way to go. XHTML is the first step toward XML and what Tim Berners-Lee
calls "The Semantic Web."

Properly designed XHTML documents typically are smaller and less complex
than their HTML counterparts and are more easily viewed on older browsers.
Valid XHTML documents are XML-conforming, so that they can be viewed,
edited, and validated with standard XML tools. Best of all, you can extend
XHTML documents with namespaces (collections of element-naming
conventions) to combine multiple markup languages and add new tags.

XHTML 1.0 connects the present Web to the future Web, It provides the
bridge to page and site authors for entering the structured data, XML
world, while still being able to maintain operability with user agents
that support HTML 4.

Apart from proving the perceived lack of credibility of the W3C as web
'standards' body, I see no serious lesson to be learned from Tim BL's
recent writtings. If he is recognizing -in an implicit way of course- that
sistematically failed to correctly address web needs during last years,
how you are confident that he got the point now? Some years ago HTML was
dead, could you garantize me that he will not change his mind again
regarding the future of XML/XHTML/HTML?

> Anyway, all I can add as far as MathML is concerned is that whatever
> new WGs the W3C ends up with, MathML should become part of the next
> HTML, period. Let's make a block behind this, and not fragment
> ourselves any further with wishful thinking and the illusion that
> MathML is fine in the icy isolation of XHTML/XML.

I.e. to be read: W3C activity will be ignored when do not fit into your
own particular vision. The technical criticisms pointed here, in WhatWG
list, and also in Mozilla lists just ignored. Any of queries asked (i did
a bunch of them) do not solved.

Your plea for consensus around your initiative looks ironic. Who is
fragmenting what? Who is reinventing the wheel? Who is ready to add a
different version of MathML backward incompatible with current MathML
tools? How many browers are promoting this MathML-in-HTML5? How many
voices are supporting you? Is not that "icy isolation"?

Please end this parody. I already explained you two or three times you can
do anything you want with the browser and with HTML5 but you cannot change
the meaning of MathML from "XML application" to

I am not subscribed to WhatWG list since some weeks ago. I am not
subscribed to any Mozilla list. You would not contact me, I am completely
uninterested in this proposal.
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2006 14:39:24 UTC

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