From: Frédéric WANG <fred.wang@free.fr>

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:19:28 +0100

Message-ID: <5121E410.9030700@free.fr>

To: www-math@w3.org

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:19:28 +0100

Message-ID: <5121E410.9030700@free.fr>

To: www-math@w3.org

@Terry: Yes, I agree with you that ideally, native MathML should be used instead of a Javascript library. Again, rather than a polyfill, I think the MathJax project is better characterized by the fact that it allows more and more people to publish mathematical content on the Web. In the past, one had to write valid XHTML pages, serve them as application/xhtml+xml, ask people to install fonts or plugins and to use special converters for MathML. With MathJax, one just has to insert a line of code in the page and directly write LaTeX/AsciiMath in the HTML source. Of course there are limitations, those that you mention as well as others that have been raised in the MathJax community, but at the moment I think that's the best trade off between rendering quality and what people would expect from a native browser features. BTW, here is what Paul mentioned: https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/wiki/Shrinking-MathJax-for-%22local%22-installation Regarding the fact that Mozilla should highlight the MathML support in Gecko, I think your case answers the question: for some reason you decided to switch from Firefox to Chrome and the lack of MathML support did not make you change your mind. So it seems that Chrome does some things better than Firefox and these features are more important for you than MathML. I think you're not the only one in that case and actually most people don't care about advanced mathematical notations, so from the point of view of browser competition it's not surprising that Mozilla puts more interest in other aspects of the browser... -- Frédéric Wang maths-informatique-jeux.com/blog/fredericReceived on Monday, 18 February 2013 08:18:34 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Monday, 18 February 2013 08:18:34 GMT
*