- From: Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 20:47:07 -0400
- Cc: www-math@w3.org
White Lynx wrote: [... lots of detailed suggestions that will be useful in the next phase! ...] > In principle involving JS one can render even LateX, but the problem is that > both JS and XSLT are much less convenient then pure CSS. Already today we can > do a lot of things with JS but is anyone really happy with this approach? I wouldn't be happy if I, as author, had to supply it; less still if I have to guess which bits of JS is needed for a given browser, and which style of DOM programming I have to use, etc... > So let us concretely identify all problems that prevent MathML from being merged > into XML + CSS rendering scheme and let's see what we may loose. [...] > But are these things really essential? Can't one just drop them and focus on basics? That's a key question: Can we paper over the odd parts of MathML --- and hide the glue from the authors? And if not, can we throw out the odd parts? I'm not going the latter route without a clear concensus. :< [...] > ... So what is impossible in CSS2 will be possible within CSS3. CSS3 is the target for a Math-CSS module, not CSS2. > However there still will be problems. The question is what are these > problems and whether they can be addressed by extending CSS in realistic way. Exactly! -- bruce.miller@nist.gov http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/
Received on Monday, 17 May 2004 20:47:38 UTC