- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:10:12 +0100
- To: public-cdf@w3.org
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 01:50, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > Hi Bert, > > you wrote: > > * WICD Full > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICDFull-20051219/ > > > > 1) For me, a much more useful format would have: > > - HTML > > - MathML > > - Java > > in addition to the formats mentioned, and would not have > > - ECMAScript. > > While it is possible to build a WICD profile along these lines, the > Working Group chose *a* profile that met *an* expressed need for the > contents of the current profile. That's an unusually modest ambition for a WG... But I don't believe you believe that yourself. WICD's goal is to define the Web, or at least the Web browser, of tomorrow. When tomorrow all browsers implement WICD and not MathML, what are you going to say? "Sorry, it's just a profile, we didn't expect anybody to take WICD seriously"? MathML has to be there right from the start. Almost anything else can be added later, because it is only transcluded (so no change to the parsing) and occupies a rectangle (so no change to the rendering). But MathML pretty much has to be included instead of transcluded (you're not going to make a file for every formula) and, more importantly, math formulas have to be typographically integrated into the text. If you want to postpone Java and HTML, that's unfortunate, but understandable. But if Math isn't included *now*, the rendering engines will not support it and their programmers will fiercely resist addding it later. Math in HTML was already demonstrated in 1995 and more than ten years later it still doesn't work on the Web. Please, don't make that mistake with WICD! Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2006 11:10:23 UTC