Re: [MathOnWeb] Peter K's comments on directions for 2018

> On 15 Jan 2018, at 15:29, Peter Krautzberger <peter@krautzource.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ivan,
> 
> Let me change the thread title.
> 
> You wrote
> 
> > I am looking at this from the end user's point of view.
> > The approach taken by HTML5 back then was that:
> 
> > - The math content is described in MathML and is added to HTML using the <math> element
> > - The browsers will "just do it", ie, the result is displayed properly in the text
> 
> > That is all the user was supposed to know.
> 
> I can't really argue as you know much more about the history of the spec. But I admit from today's point of view, it strikes me as very optimistic.

As I said: this model failed:-(

> 
> MathML is intentionally under-specified (as Neil pointed out in the last CG call, as fit with the spirit of 90s HTML). From my time on the MathWG I had the impression that WG members mostly thought this situation was desirable or not their problem.
> 
> > If he/she was authoring HTML directly, then the idea was to use MathML elements. Of course, pre-processors or authoring tools were considered as possible bridges to use LaTeX or whatever else.
> 
> This is not my impression.
> 
> The credo of the MathML community has always been "you don't write MathML directly". Mostly this is used as a defense against plain text formats such as TeX but depending on what people are trying to sell, is usually means that you can convert your preferred format to MathML or that you can create MathML it with their tools. This goes as far as AT such as MathPlayer or speech-rule-engine which actually generates an essentially different format that is then used for accessibility.
> 
> I think in reality, except for a very select group of specialists, nobody "writes" MathML; just like very few people "write" SVG (relative to the number of users who deploy SVG content).

You may be right on this, but that is not what I meant. I did say that MathML was meant to be the standard on the "bottom", so to say, and there would be tools mapping on that either from other syntaxes like LaTeX or coming from interactive tools. Ie, I do not think we disagree on this.

> 
> So again, I'd say nothing changes if MathML is deprecated: instead of converting content to MathML or creating MathML in editing interfaces, people will convert to or create HTML, SVG etc.

See below

> 
> > This model failed. At the minimum, this model has to be expanded by adding a reference to mathjax or something similar to make it work.
> 
> At the risk of repeating myself, there are many other tools that do similar things to what MathJax does, some use MathML as a data model (most don't), some go for the same TeX-style layout quality (most do not), some are focused on problems such as editing or controlling visualizations, so they have a completely different set of priorities.
> 
> > But I am still not clear what you propose to replace it with: if the <math> element is obsolete, what would an author have to do to get, at the end of the day, math on the page? What is the realistic path to get there?
> 
> To me, this is the same question as asking anyone how they might get anything slightly complex onto a webpage. There are many tools you can choose from and authors already demonstrate that they don't have hard time finding and choosing between them. So I admit I don't see what you think is missing.
> 

If I followed your logic, there is no reason of having the HTML or SVG elements either; having the DOM as a data model and a bunch of javascript libraries handling that is enough. I have seen of course SVG based Web sites where there is only one single SVG element used, namely <svg>, and everything else is a giant javascript. Is this what you envisage for math on the Web, too?

I have difficulties to imagine that this approach would fly (but I may just be completely outdated which, in view of my age, is of course a possibility:-). But just as there is a need for <ul> and <li> elements to create a Web page, I believe there is a need for some declarative (or mostly declarative) syntax for mathematics. I do not care whether the way this is presented on the Web relies on some clever scripts making use of the latest CSS goodies… I just want to be able to describe succinctly my equation.

I am bound to the current MathML syntax. I could even to have several syntaxes aimed at different communities. But you seem to say that there is no need for such standard whatsoever. This may be a source of our disagreement… (unless I completely misunderstand what you say).

Furthermore: there is an issue of interoperability. The HTML community has put in an enormous energy to define, in a real detail, on what really happens for each HTML element, and how they are presented on the screen. What they achieved is a significant interoperability among browsers as for layout and other things. Isn't there a need to do something similar for math? Some sort of a specification that says "this and this feature is implemented through this and this CSS/SVG/HTML element"? Otherwise we incur the danger of different tools mapping math on completely different feature sets, leading to a possible mess...

Ivan



----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704