- From: Roger B. Sidje <rbs@maths.uq.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:57:03 +1000
- To: juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com
- CC: www-math@w3.org
So the next version is going to be called HTML6? Or perhaps HTML7? I guess you are going to say now that I claimed these too... Wow, you missed that humour and easy-going aspect of my post. --- RBS On 2/11/2006 5:52 PM, juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: > rbs@maths.uq.edu.au said: > > Your so-called MathML initiative is not MathML; XML applications are being > rethinked as DOM trees as justification for the change; now you claim that > HTML5 is officially going to W3C, waiting what? > > Everything, I read from Tim Berness-Lee is about the plans for a new HTML. > Where does he endorse WhatWG HTML 5? > > >>Juan & The While Lynx: the quote above is not from hixie or me, culled >>from the MathML-in-HTLM5 thread. It is a quote from the man himself. > > > You cite Tim BL and appeal to his authority. Let me then quote him and > others authorities also: > > <blockquote> > If you want your site to work with the largest possible audience and > "future proof" it for the coming XML-based web, converting to XHTML is the > way to go. XHTML is the first step toward XML and what Tim Berners-Lee > calls "The Semantic Web." > </blockquote> > > <blockquote> > Properly designed XHTML documents typically are smaller and less complex > than their HTML counterparts and are more easily viewed on older browsers. > Valid XHTML documents are XML-conforming, so that they can be viewed, > edited, and validated with standard XML tools. Best of all, you can extend > XHTML documents with namespaces (collections of element-naming > conventions) to combine multiple markup languages and add new tags. > </blockquote> > > <blockquote> > XHTML 1.0 connects the present Web to the future Web, It provides the > bridge to page and site authors for entering the structured data, XML > world, while still being able to maintain operability with user agents > that support HTML 4. > </blockquote> > > Apart from proving the perceived lack of credibility of the W3C as web > 'standards' body, I see no serious lesson to be learned from Tim BL's > recent writtings. If he is recognizing -in an implicit way of course- that > sistematically failed to correctly address web needs during last years, > how you are confident that he got the point now? Some years ago HTML was > dead, could you garantize me that he will not change his mind again > regarding the future of XML/XHTML/HTML? > > >>Anyway, all I can add as far as MathML is concerned is that whatever >>new WGs the W3C ends up with, MathML should become part of the next >>HTML, period. Let's make a block behind this, and not fragment >>ourselves any further with wishful thinking and the illusion that >>MathML is fine in the icy isolation of XHTML/XML. > > > I.e. to be read: W3C activity will be ignored when do not fit into your > own particular vision. The technical criticisms pointed here, in WhatWG > list, and also in Mozilla lists just ignored. Any of queries asked (i did > a bunch of them) do not solved. > > Your plea for consensus around your initiative looks ironic. Who is > fragmenting what? Who is reinventing the wheel? Who is ready to add a > different version of MathML backward incompatible with current MathML > tools? How many browers are promoting this MathML-in-HTML5? How many > voices are supporting you? Is not that "icy isolation"? > > Please end this parody. I already explained you two or three times you can > do anything you want with the browser and with HTML5 but you cannot change > the meaning of MathML from "XML application" to > "your-favourite-HTML-serialization-in-Gecko". > > I am not subscribed to WhatWG list since some weeks ago. I am not > subscribed to any Mozilla list. You would not contact me, I am completely > uninterested in this proposal. > > > >
Received on Friday, 3 November 2006 09:02:40 UTC