- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 21:45:13 +0000 (UTC)
- To: juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com
- Cc: www-math@w3.org
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: > > Then silent... and now Mozilla community and Ian launch this approach. Um, I'm not launching anything. I was asked by a Mozilla developer for comments on an experimental implementation of allowing MathML content to be included in text/html documents, and I gave technical feedback. That's all. In general, though, your e-mail seems to imply that the way things should work is that first we write a specification, and then we have implementations, and we somehow manage to get the specification perfect the first time. This isn't how things work. To get a specification, we first have to have experimental implementations and proof-of-concepts, we have to do research into authoring practices, etc. Only once implementors and authors have experience can they give the spec writers feedback that allow us to write a useful spec. I support Roger's experimentation here, as it will provide us with valuable implementation experience and thus allow us to work out how to move forward on this. > 4) At the one hand, Mozilla is implementing alternatives to W3C specs. > HTML 5 vs XHTML 2 Currently, HTML5 and XHTML2 are orthogonal and are not mutually exclusive. They use different namespaces. (I've heard that the ex-HTML working group might be considering using the same namespace for XHTML2 and XHTML1, which _would_ make the HTML5 and XHTML2 proposals incompatible, but that isn't the case yet.) > canvas vs SVG Again, these are not mutually exclusive; they have different use cases and all the browsers that implement <canvas> also have SVG implementations. > WGforms vs XForms, etc "WGForms", more properly known as HTML forms, are a W3C technology (see HTML4). The Web Forms 2 proposal merely extends these and has no bearing on XForms. Mozilla in fact has a more complete implementation of XForms than Web Forms 2. > Then the natural way would be HTML-Math vs MathML with HTML-Math fitting > into the rest of the WathWG philosophy. Now it is now broken. The "WHATWG philosophy" is pragmatism. Mozilla already has a MathML implementation; the easiest and most pragmatic way forward is to reuse it. > I see Ian claiming that he want to see stuff as <none> in HTML 5 instead > valid <none/> of MathML. He want no MathML entities except two or three > he choosed, he changes the syntax from ⁢ to > &InvisibleTimes and does other further changes. That, of course, looks > somewhat like MathML but is not MathML. I'm not sure what makes you think I would want semicolons to be optional on entities; this is in fact not the case. My concern over not introducing the several thousand MathML entities into text/html content is again one of mere pragmatism -- it is a fact that pages will break if we introduce new entities willy nilly, and without thorough research I do not feel comfortable introducing such entities. On the long term I would imagine that most entities probably could be introduced, and certain entities will have to be left out for compatibility reasons. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 2 October 2006 21:45:26 UTC