RE: [mediaqueries] MathML

My arguments were not political. I never used the word "deserves" or anything coming close to it. Sounds like you are the one making a political decision and using my position for cover. [Sorry to be so blunt, following your lead]

So it looks like MathML will lose yet another battle. I'm sure it will survive this ding like it has all the others.

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 11:49 AM
> To: Paul Topping <pault@dessci.com>
> Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>; Avneesh Singh
> <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>; www-style list <www-style@w3.org>; W3C Digital
> Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>; Peter Krautzberger
> <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>
> Subject: Re: [mediaqueries] MathML
> 
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Paul Topping <pault@dessci.com> wrote:
> >> > Given a suitable definition of "UA implements MathML", there should
> >> > be
> >> no question that it exposes an important UA characteristic. Since
> >> MathML is part of HTML5, it could be argued that it should have an MQ
> >> even if all UAs report no implementation using it.
> >>
> >> There is not MQ for HTML5. There is no MQ for features of HTML5. So
> >> that's not a very good guideline.
> >
> > I wasn't talking about MQ for features of HTML5. Just using MathML's
> presence in the HTML5 spec as an indication that it is significant.  If it can be
> argued that MathML support is a "characteristic of the rendering device", to
> use your phrase, then it is a significant one due to MathML's inclusion in
> HTML5.
> 
> (Sorry to be blunt here.) We don't make technical decisions based on political
> reasoning. MathML doesn't get a MQ because it "deserves" it.
> We make MQs when the information they expose has real use-cases for
> authors: where there's some situation where the "default" rendering is
> significantly worse for some reason, and being able to tell when you're in
> that situation and adjust your styling accordingly has significant benefits.
> 
> The original discussion about the math MQ in the CSSWG led us to believe
> that it passed this bar (or was at least close to it; the MQ itself was simple
> enough that it didn't need to clear a very high hurdle).  Later discussion at
> TPAC, which Florian summarized and I added to, has shifted our belief the
> opposite way.  It appears, based on the current information available to us,
> that the above conditions are not met - current rendering techniques
> generate results that are acceptable to page authors regardless of whether
> MathML is natively supported or not, and knowing whether or not it was
> natively supported wouldn't allow authors to significantly improve their page
> rendering.
> 
> ~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2016 19:50:35 UTC