- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:52:48 +0100
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- CC: public-html@w3.org, www-math@w3.org

David Carlisle wrote: >> I'm really uncertain why you think that running an HTML parser to >> construct an in-memory representation of the HTML in the same in memory >> format as that used for XML is the wrong way to import HTML content into >> an application that currently imports only XML. > > The concern is importing mathml content. If it's MathML-in-text/html, you will need a HTML 5 parser. If the product doesn't have one built in you could use a html-XHTML converter based on a HTML5 parser and XML serializer, as Henri previously pointed out. >> <wikimath> > as I said before I have no objection to wiki syntax (I think it's a > good thing) but I think it should be restricted to wikis. > > Not everyone needs mathml, if you are just going to write x^2 + 1 in > html you can now and may in the future, just go > x<sup>2</sup> + 1 How does that address my concern about the difficulties of authoring a treatise on, say, the Maxwell equations in a text editor. As a point of comparison for those unfamiliar with just how verbose MathML is, I tried using Itex2MML to convert a TeX representation of one of these equations (in integral form) to MathML. The result may not be entirely idiomatic MathML but it gives an idea of the complexity: The IteX: \[ \oint_\text{loop} \mathbf{H} \cdot {d\mathbf{l}} = I_\text{free} + \int_\text{surface} \frac{\partial \mathbf{D}}{\partial t} \cdot d\mathbf{s} \] The equivalent MathML: <math xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML' display='block'> <msub> <mo>∮</mo> <mtext>loop</mtext> </msub> <mstyle fontweight="bold"> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> </mstyle> <mo>⋅</mo> <mrow> <mi>d</mi> <mstyle fontweight="bold"> <mrow> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> </mstyle> </mrow> <mo>=</mo> <msub> <mi>I</mi> <mrow> <mtext>free</mtext> </mrow> </msub> <mo>+</mo> <msub> <mo>∫</mo> <mtext>surface</mtext> </msub> <mfrac> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> <mstyle fontweight="bold"> <mrow> <mi>D</mi> </mrow> </mstyle> </mrow> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> <mi>t</mi> </mrow> </mfrac> <mo>⋅</mo> <mi>d</mi> <mstyle fontweight="bold"> <mrow> <mi>s</mi> </mrow></mstyle> </math> > But to simultaneously try to introduce the benefits of using a common > mathematical markup language, and to remove the necessity of using any > markup at all just seems completely broken to me. As far as I can tell, the net effect of using a markup language for serialising maths is negative, since it adds an unmanageable amount of verbosity. There are certainly advantages to the in memory representation being tree-like but that can be achieved without sacrificing any notion of a human-readable source. -- "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Received on Monday, 31 March 2008 10:54:08 UTC