- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:36:31 +0100
- To: "Neil Soiffer" <Neils@dessci.com>, "Aaron M Leventhal" <aleventh@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: brewer@w3.org, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, public-pfwg-comments@w3.org, unagi69@concentric.net, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf-request@w3.org

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:49:42 +0100, Neil Soiffer <Neils@dessci.com> wrote: > Sorry for the dreadfully slow response -- travel is killing me. No worries, and thanks for the information. > FYI: TeX, LaTeX, etc. TeX is basically a programming language, although > most people don't think of it as such. Much of TeX's functionality is > via > using one of its many macro packages. LaTeX is one such package. Many > journals implement their own macros for submission. TeX's power is also > what makes it difficult to import in general since you can add new > functionality and pretty drastically change what TeX looks like, even at > the > syntax level. > > For math, this tends not to be too hard a problem since people tend to > use > the base set of macros along with a few added by LaTeX. Some more > advanced > math, such as tensors or matrices might have differing macro for them, > but > at least for simple matrices, I think two macros are commonly used. > > The bottom line is that for most math, you don't care whether it is TeX > or > the LaTeX extensions, or AMSTeX, or macro packages, they are similar > enough > that a single processor can handle them. But interoperability for all cases is desired, not just the common cases. > And if someone doesn't use this > base set, a processor would have trouble unless they implemented the TeX > engine and read the macros, or built in knowledge about the functions for > that package. > > I am somewhat ambivalent about labeling the expression. It is easy to > tell > the difference between TeX and MathML, ...and MathML content is inherently math, and hence, doesn't need role='math'. > and most new math notations for input > are similar to TeX. The exceptions would be if someone used Maple or > Mathematica or some other computation system's language. They are > somewhat > different from TeX. Labeling would help in situations like that, or if > someone had some other format such as MathType's MTEF format which is an > ASCII representation of its internal format. I haven't seen it proposed before that authors should label which format they use for their role='math' expression. Even though that would make it possible to disambiguate different expression syntaxes, it's not the simplest solution to the problem. The simplest solution I can come up with is to say that the expression must be encoded as and parsed as LaTeX (implying leading and trailing $ or $$). >> But how do you implement it? Should the UA autodetect whether it's TeX >> or >> >> LaTeX or something else? How are authors supposed to know what to write? >> How do we achieve interoperability? What's the advantage of leaving it >> open-ended? >> >> >> > See the thread I started called 'New role="math" in ARIA, how to >> author >> > and how browser would expose it' >> > In that thread we're discussing some of the remaining issues, and you >> can >> > see the current definition. >> >> The current definition doesn't seem to handle: >> >> <object role="math" data="foo">a^2+b^2=c^2</object> >> >> Also, when would it be better to have the expression in another element >> than as text in the element itself (i.e. when is labelledby needed for >> role=math)? >> >> Finally, I don't know (La)TeX very good, but shouldn't $ or $$ be >> implied >> >> around the expression? (I'm still not sure about the answers to these questions.) -- Simon Pieters Opera Software

Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 11:37:11 UTC