Re: Exploring new vocabularies for HTML

I had decided to go over David message, but since now there are two
misinterpretations of my early message in W3C lists i am sending a common
reply to both of you.

I did *not* claimed that MathML was the cause of the performance problem
in FireFox 2. I did *not* cited other browsers, rendering engines, *nor*
future versions of Firefox.

In my original message of day 8 Apr 2008 I was replying David over dramatic
statement.

The message analyzed a case extracted from real world and compared with
several MathML cases. One of nine original points was about incremental
rendering, where i discussed an issue affecting Firefox 2 with medium-size
MathML docs.

David reply to that point was something like everything-is-fine-for-me.

But the performance problems with Firefox 2 are not the result of a local
setup problem as David suggested but a well-known issue with the MathML
engine. This was showed in my message of 14 April 2008, which also
contained a link to *own Mozilla site* discussing MathML performance
issues with the browser [#].

I also cited Padovani research about Mozilla performance problems with
large and complex MathML docs and typed a quotation -including the part
where Padovani explains the absence of problem in alternative rendering
engine-.

Obviously, i introduced the quotation as support for my previous message,
which was noticing of the existence of performance problems -not local
setups- with a native MathML capable main browser.

Therefore i fail to understand the points and false attributions becoming
from both of you.



Juan R. González-Álvarez

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)


[#] Part of my message that both of you ignored during reply.

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 09:00:30 UTC