- From: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:52:27 -0600
- To: ajvincent@juno.com
- CC: www-math@w3.org, www-dom@w3.org
Hi. > I recently posted a note to my weblog detailing some issues I believe > the Math WG and the DOM WG should consider: > > http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/weirdal/archives/002590.html > > Max Froumentin of Math WG suggested to me in June 2002 there are no > plans for a new version of MathML; I believe it may be time for some > discussion on whether a new minor version is needed/desirable or not > (2.1, not 3.0). > > Opinions? The time is not right for another version. The current working group charter expires this summer, and it last major deliverable is a 2nd Edition of MathML 2.0 that incorporates the errata/bug fixes collected over the last couple years. After that, there will likely be a Math interest group at W3C serving primarily maintanence and liason roles, and to recharter a working group for a revision to the spec at some point in the future. Apart from these administrative reasons, there is a deeper, underlying reason: many organizations are just now starting to switch over to XML workflows utilizing MathML. Until there is some real data about what problems these adopters really hit, it is too soon the guess what a revision of the spec should contain. Further, introducing a new version of the spec would make existing MathML implementations obsolete, just as they are actually being deployed and used. Not a good idea. --Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Robert Miner RobertM@dessci.com MathML 2.0 Specification Co-editor 651-223-2883 Design Science, Inc. "How Science Communicates" www.dessci.com ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2003 14:52:50 UTC