- From: Patrick Ion <ion@ams.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:13:50 -0400
- To: "<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>" <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- Cc: <www-math@w3.org>
Dear Juan, I certainly don't quarrel either with the quotation from Hutchinson of <blockquote> MathML has a number of weaknesses. </blockquote> or, in fact, with the assertion. Nor is there a problem for me with his <blockquote> My guess is that it won’t. But with luck it will gradually become more widespread. </blockquote> That's his prognosis and a benevolent wish. I could quibble over how big a niche might be, but I am not clear how MathML could 'take over web mathematics publishing' at the present stage of web technology. I'm not sure CSS has correspondingly taken over web page styling, though it's a lot wider in scope than MathML as a markup. Where I questioned the attribution to Hutchinson was for the phrasing > we abandon the MathML approach, encourage to all us users, > collaborators, and visitors to abandon MathML, but I now see that perhaps you intended to convey in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/2006Jul/0028.html not that sense of attribution to IH, but that you wished to correct your typo by us users ==> our users So the syntax form of your message was, in outline, Typos ... > A may read B with C instead >D and might have been in another notation Typos: A ==> B D ==> C This perhaps illustrates the difficulties of markup without specifications. Are you really proposing to explore examples such as you have in > For instance, the recently > proposed at the HTML5 mailing list > <frac>a<den>2</frac> > also works with CSS, even if is *not* valid xml. Ok? Obviously one can work with other markup than valid XML. It just does not seem to me a very good idea in this context today. Any revision to a MathML spec will have to be consonant with other prevalent W3C specs, I believe, as the previous versions were at their times. All the best, Patrick
Received on Thursday, 13 July 2006 17:14:01 UTC