- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 14:48:27 +0100
- To: Stan Devitt <stan.devitt@gwi-ag.com>
- Cc: "'Alex Kozlenkov'" <alex.kozlenkov@betfair.com>, Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
On Jun 6, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Stan Devitt wrote: > I have quietly watched this debate about the ability (advisability) > of RIF > to attempt to meet a real need of industry and I suspect that many > of the > difficulties are arising because people are losing site of some > important > facts about the role of RIF. Can it not be the case that there is significant disagreement about what those facts are? [snip] > MathML has achieved wide adoption exceeding our greatest hopes [snip] This is very interesting. Could you point to some documents describing 1) the greatest hopes (expressed before or during the process of development) and 2) the current wide adoption (e.g., who has adopted it, for what, etc.) Frankly, I've kinda always thought of MathML as a total bust, but I'm very very happy to be corrected! My casual looksee at some W3C pages is not all that encouraging, but perhaps that's because the W3C no longer actively works on promotion? (e.g., <http://www.w3.org/Math/Software/ mathml_software_cat_browsers.html>) (This seems more encouraging, but is somewhat old: <http://www.dessci.com/en/reference/webmath/status/status_Sep_03.htm> I wonder if anyone has tried the Google 200 today? MathML was completely unrepresented, which accords with my experience.) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 14:19:00 UTC