- From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:18:58 -0800 (PST)
- To: <www-math@w3.org>, <"mailto:aldiaz"@us.ibm.com>, <"mailto:ion"@ams.org>, <mf@w3.org>, <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
Dear sirs, I began the development of a website based in XHTML 1.1 strict + MathML 2.0 some time ago. See http://www.canonicalscience.com/en/researchzone/nanothermodynamics.xml or http://www.canonicalscience.com/en/researchzone/canonical.xml for examples. Initially, i used tools from the MathML implementation page, but none of them fit all our requirements. In fact, some famous editors offered wrong output in some of our tests when compared to free tools. Finally, some equations may be fine-tuned by hand. But the big problem is with next stage of website. I then decided direct input for the math, but since MathML is too verbose, this implies development of an input sintax. In the Technical MathML Issues of the FAQ one can read {query} Does the WG still intend to develop a short form input syntax as part of MathML ? {answer} During the development of MathML it has become clear that the requirements on input syntaxes vary so widely that no single syntax will satisfy all users. Various members of the WG have developed input syntaxes for their particular tools. The WG will provide technical advice to all those who are involved in the development of input syntaxes for MathML-aware tools. Input syntaxes do not form part of the core MathML recommendation. Then i contacted with several authors of the MathML specification and received none reply about this. Next, i submitted an official plea to the MathML list. Choosing a notation for CanonMath (review of MathML) [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/2006Feb/0012.html] Until now, i have received none reply from WG. I find just curioust to read, for instance, David Carlishe replies to others MathML topics surrounding my post of 17 February, whereas ignoring my own. is it the ignoring of emails and mailing list posts the usual attitude for the MathML specification? An official attitude from mine will be taken this weeek and submited to Canonical Science Today. Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 16:19:21 UTC