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

Re: HTML5 @ W3C

From: Roger B. Sidje <rbs@maths.uq.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:57:03 +1000
Message-ID: <454B045F.1050808@maths.uq.edu.au>
To: juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com
CC: www-math@w3.org

So the next version is going to be called HTML6? Or perhaps HTML7? I 
guess you are going to say now that I claimed these too... Wow, you 
missed that humour and easy-going aspect of my post.
---
RBS

On 2/11/2006 5:52 PM, juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote:

> 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:
> 
> <blockquote>
> 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."
> </blockquote>
> 
> <blockquote>
> 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.
> </blockquote>
> 
> <blockquote>
> 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.
> </blockquote>
> 
> 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
> "your-favourite-HTML-serialization-in-Gecko".
> 
> 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 Friday, 3 November 2006 09:02:40 GMT

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