Henri Sivonen wrote on 03/30/2008 06:46:33 AM: > > What I think is problematic is using product- > specific formats instead of Content MathML. Allowing product-specific > formats diminishes the incentive for vendors to use Content MathML for > semantic round-tripping. [on behalf of Jacques Distler] Having sat down to read the Mailing list archives on the subject, I had one more comment, on the <semantics>/<annotation> element. I have long toyed with the idea of having itex2MML [1] use <annotation> to embed the itex source for the equation. With a little DOM-wrangling, this would allow copy/paste roundtripping of the itex source. The lack of such roundtripping is the biggest current annoyance when commenting on my blog [2] or on the n-category Cafe [3]. I realize that embedding vendor-specific markup in <annotation> was derided [4] by some in that thread. But I am not sure what alternative would be more desirable. Anyway, this is very much unimplemented, and may never be implemented. But, given that, for most authors, the equation-entry syntax will be some LaTeX derivative (like itex), it seems to me desirable to keep open the option of embedding the original markup, using <annotation>. Jacques [1] http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/itex2MML.html [2] http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/ [3] http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/ [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0302.html
Received on Monday, 31 March 2008 21:18:21 UTC