W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > March 2010

Re: online editor of Presentation and Content MathML

From: Neil Soiffer <neil.soiffer@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:07:01 -0700
Message-ID: <d98bce171003231007u7485f591pbc103124d335efc@mail.gmail.com>
To: info@mmlsoft.com
Cc: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>, www-math@w3.org
At the risk of putting words in Paul's mouth, I think what he is asking is
for you to report the results for of the current test suite.  In order for
MathML3 to pass to "proposed recommendation", we need to show the results of
several implementations.  Since Formulator supports so much of MathML, it
would be an excellent candidate to include in the testsuite results.

If you can't directly run the testsuite runner listed on
http://www.w3.org/Math/testsuite/build/main/

I'm sure Paul can help you so that you can get a version that can be run
with Formulator so that the results get reported and can be included in the
results page.


Neil Soiffer
Senior Scientist
Design Science, Inc.
www.dessci.com
~ Makers of MathType, MathFlow, MathPlayer, MathDaisy, WebEQ, Equation
Editor ~


On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Hermitech Laboratory <info@mmlsoft.com>wrote:

> Dear Paul,
>
> thank you for your question.
>
> If answering in brief, the majority of w3org test cases are supported.
>
> Silverlight client requests our desktop editor (Formulator MathML Weaver),
> that
> is installed on a server. Desktop version is being developed for last 7
> years
> and has quite good support both for MathML entities and test cases
> coverage. So
> online version has the same MathML conformance results, as our desktop
> editor.
>
> You can download results of conformance with MathML 2.0 standard in
> http://www.mmlsoft.com/dmdocuments/FormulatorMathML2.0Conformance.pdfdocument
> and W3C test suite coverage in
> http://www.mmlsoft.com/dmdocuments/FormulatorMathML2.0TestSuite.pdfdocument.
> >From the time when these documents were created for a former version of
> the
> desktop editor, our results become only better.
>
> I didn't understand quite well the second question, sorry. If you mean
> human
> languages, surely we support Unicode and typing in different languages. If
> you
> mean languages other tham MathML, not yet, but we would like to.
>
> Finally, if talking about choice of Silverlight, I willingly agree that in
> some
> sense it's not so good, since, for instance, Flash plugin is much more
> widespread. On the contrary, from our point of view (as software
> developers)
> Silverlight means faster and easier start. It's important. Our editors are
> free,
> and our work doesn't bring profit for us, so we would not really like to do
> spend useless efforts before we know that such a project can be useful for
> someone.
>
> That's why exactly Silverlight client comes first. On the other hand, it's
> absolutely not important for us which browser plugin is used for the client
> part
> of online MathML editor. Now it is Silverlight, and tomorrow it can be
> Flash or
> whatever. The major part of our interest up to now was to build a case of
> completed and fully functional distributed online MathML editor that can be
> easily widen in a sense of clients implementation and to understand if
> there
> will be any interest to this project. The choice of browser plugin
> technology
> (as opposed to a scripting language approach) is more essential point than
> a
> choice of Silverlight, Flash or some other plugin.
>
> Best regards,
> Vyacheslav
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 17:07:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 March 2010 17:07:35 GMT