Re: Exploring new vocabularies for HTML

Jeff Schiller wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Bruce Miller < 
> <>> wrote:
>     Now, it gets interesting:
>     I'd like to cut that formula and use it
>     in a computer algebra system, or graphing calculator,
>     or....  I need Classic MathML and the browser could
>     reconstruct it from the DOM....
>     Fine, but will that be a _requirement_ that a browser
>     provide that?
>     Or, is it anticipated that every MathML importing
>     tool integrate an HTML5 parser?
>     Or am I expected to paste to some tmp buffer, and
>     run a 3rd party converter to convert to Classic form?
> These are all the same concerns I have with SVG-like markup in HTML.  
> However, you bring up a very interesting point - if all browsers 
> provided a way to cut-and-paste the DOM (not the source) then most 
> problems would go away - isn't that right?

It would seem so, at least exporting from the browser.
It still leaves the case of integrating externally generated
MathML or SVG into an HTML5 page in an editor
(tho' browser's built-in editors could also convert).
Presumably those of us that work in XML could use a
standard XSL to dumb-down m-<Backspace> re-serialize
the MathML & SVG when converting to HTML5.
Is that good enough? I dunno; only if the payoff is high.

My fellow Math WG'ers may hate me for saying this, but
provided there _is_ an unambiguous mapping between the
two serializations, and providing such conversion is
_required_ to be in (at least) the browsers, 
frankly it really doesn't matter how offensive the
HTML5-ized Math is.
Give me a stylesheet and I'll never even have to look at it :>

[Note that "unambiguous mapping" excludes the
case of nonsensical Math, like fraction(1,2,3)
(whatever serialization)]

> Jeff


Received on Monday, 31 March 2008 16:49:20 UTC