- From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 05:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
?istein E. Andersen wrote: > > Conversion to MathML is obviously more difficult because the base has to > be found and encoded explicitly. Still, I do _not_ say that conversion > from TeX to HTML5 will be trivial in all cases. Then we agree. As stated a the beginning of discussion by some, TeX backward compatibility will be maintained so many as was possible. >>[classes:] "vector" or "Hilbert-vector" [or] "ket". >>I would leave [the choice] to authors until that a generic >>semantic markup was achieved, proved to be consistent and powerful and >> then used by authors. > > With all the different concepts and notational conventions that exist in > different scientific fields and mathematical disciplines, no such thing > as a generic semantic mark-up is likely to appear any time soon. I tend > to believe that you agree. I wait to see content markups spreading in a near future, but I think that semantic markup is a dead horse (as AI was decades ago). Still semantic web is main vision of Tim Bray last years (the WHATWG takes a pragmatic approach trying to solve everyday problems). > The combination of author-defined classes and CSS styling obviously > makes sense in many ways. Still, I am a bit reluctant when it comes to > encoding the right font using the class attribute. Perhaps a profile > would make it acceptable, as suggested by Michel Fortin. Maybe. >>Also "tag" is not usual in French texts. > > I am afraid I do not understand what you mean. Oops! I did mean "tan". Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Received on Monday, 12 June 2006 05:36:25 UTC