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

Re: online editor of Presentation and Content MathML

From: Hermitech Laboratory <info@mmlsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:20:12 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <28009.>
To: neils@dessci.com
Cc: "Paul Libbrecht" <paul@activemath.org>, www-math@w3.org
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We will gladly try Formulator with the
test suite for MathML3 in the nearest time.

Best regards,

Neil Soiffer wrote:
> 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 17:20:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:42 UTC