- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:28:01 +0300
On Jun 20, 2006, at 15:26, <juanrgonzaleza at canonicalscience.com> wrote: > However, it look better that via native > MathML support browsers (without downloading and installing special > fonts). Comparing anything to a MathML implementation without giving the MathML impl the fonts it needs is totally bogus. Yes, the font special-casing is uncool. See http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-May/ 006467.html for how to help fix it in the non-stretchy case. In the stretchy case, tight coupling with particular fonts will be required in the foreseeable future. > Whereas George approach will work for any font you desire you It doesn't "work". The result is ugly! We are supposed to marvel the clothes, but the emperor is naked. > Developers prefer another couple of CSS rules rather than begin > from zero > with a unfriendly spec (MathML). Developers? Gecko is already well past zero with MathML. > Addition of general purpose features is defined in CSS 2.1 and may be > addressed by brosers *in any case*. Last MSIE browser has > incremented its > native support for CSS 2.1 whereas continues ignoring MathML. The > inline-block CSS bug in Firefox is scheduled and will be fixed in a > future > version. http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-June/ 006551.html http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-June/ 006588.html > specially in next Tim Bray semantic web, I think you confuse Tim Bray and Tim B-L. > Since XSL-FO I don't understand why you keep bringing up XSL-FO. I assure you that bringing up XSL-FO in almost every message doesn't help you make your case. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2006 07:28:01 UTC