- From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
- To: <www-math@w3.org>
White Lynx said: >> they could draw many of OMML since the markup is really CSS >> friendly: sub and sup into msubsup, num and den into frac etcetera. > > Well, basically it is as CSS friendly as MathML. Some constructions are > more CSS friendly in OMML (fractions, overscripts, maybe prescripts, > radicals) some are less (nary, properties specified in the way that > can not be accessed using CSS selectors). Certain subset will work in > XML+CSS, but the same functionality can be gained through appropriate > MathML profile. So in this respect differences between the two are not > tangible. Sure that OMML was not designed to be rendered via CSS, but sure also that the format is more DOM and CSS friendly than MathML in many aspects: prescripts before base, explicit tagging (instead MathML by position calls), prefix formats instead inline mstyles, etc. > In addition I fear that if Microsoft will push OMML as a math > markup for web then we will rather get bunch of WordML "pages" instead > of XHTML+OMML. So it is not necessary good for web as such. Outlook 2007 also got OMML math facilities. Therefore, you can also interchange mathematical equations via email with colleagues. Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Received on Thursday, 12 October 2006 12:48:05 UTC