RE: MathML 3.0 far enough along for implementation?

A few more things that might be helpful:

- The Math WG has made a real effort to preserve backwards
compatibility.  
  There are only a very few minor exceptions.  So you can count on that.

- We are intensively working on a last call draft at the moment, that 
  should appear next month.  At that point, it will be very stable.  As
  noted by others, presentation is pretty stable in the current draft, 
  but content will be changing a good deal.

- If you can tell us anything about the requirements of your client's 
  application, people may be able to offer some implementation ideas.
  There are several groups working on implementations, I know.  Plus,
  people on this list always like to know how MathML is being used!

--Robert


Dr. Robert Miner
W3C Math WG co-chair
Vice President, Research and Development
 
Design Science, Inc.
140 Pine Avenue, 4th Floor
Long Beach, California 90802
USA
Main:   (562) 432-2920
Direct: (651) 223-2883
Fax:    (651) 292-0014
robertm@dessci.com
www.dessci.com








> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-math-request@w3.org [mailto:www-math-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Scott Hudson
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:46 PM
> To: www-math@w3.org
> Subject: MathML 3.0 far enough along for implementation?
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks and best regards,
> 
> -- Scott
> Scott Hudson
> Senior XML Architect
> 
> e: scott.hudson@FlatironsSolutions.com
> O: 303.542.2146
> C: 303.332.1883
> F: 303.544.0522
> 
> http://www.FlatironsSolutions.com
> Vision. Experience. Engineering Excellence.
> 
>

Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 17:01:32 UTC