W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > January 2009

Re: MathML 3.0 far enough along for implementation?

From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:34:18 +0100
Cc: <www-math@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4DC7EAB0-DE78-42E5-ABD2-4503417C1EB8@activemath.org>
To: Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com>
Interesting and motivating,

however i would insist to ask on implementations of which part of  
MathML you intend to go. For "MathML presentation"I think the answer  
is yes, for MathML content, things are getting clearer.

For such things are schemas I'm afraid we're just a bit behind... but  
it may be a matter of a few weeks or less, RelaxNG being the priority  
thus far.

So, if you accept to make comments on the draft, I think it would be a  
fruitful thing to do for both MathML-3 (your comments, the  
consideration of another implementation) and your project (modernity,  
maturity, some more interoperability dimensions).

hope it helps


Le 22-janv.-09 à 21:45, Scott Hudson a écrit :
> I have a client that is in the midst of implementing a new content  
> model. They are currently including MathML 2.0, but I wonder if the  
> MathML 3.0 spec is far enough along and backward-compatible enough  
> to recommend implementing against this spec? The immediate  
> advantage, is that both schemas would be encoded in RelaxNG.

Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 08:35:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:41 UTC