- From: Patrick Ion <ion@ams.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:24:45 -0400
- To: "<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>" <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- Cc: <www-math@w3.org>
Dear Juan, You also write: 4) why large publishers as Elsevier are using an in-house modification of MathML instead the official recommendation. Large publishers often use customizations of software and specs in- house, as do many small ones as well. ISO 12083 was widely criticized in public as unworkable in production streams without extensive modification. That's part of the reason that MathML was welcomed by publishers. I'd be interested as to the source of your comments about the internal details of Elsevier's publishing stream. Do you suggest that all STM material is treated the same by them, or are there variations over the range of offerings? Patrick
Received on Saturday, 15 July 2006 19:24:51 UTC