- From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:56:00 -0500
- To: <www-math@w3.org>
I have found Dave Barton's comments in this thread most helpful.
In particular, he writes:
> I think it's good for all the issues to be discussed, but in the end
> the big picture is that Google and other browser vendors are not
> putting any development resources into MathML, because few web pages
> count on it, because few vendors support it. Is this a cycle we can
> unite to break, by expressing our opinions in various ways,
> including lobbying others to star the chromium issue as Neil
> suggests? That appears to be the official feedback route to
> Google.
Another node in the vicious cycle is the lack of easy access to fully
reliable ways for math professors to generate correct HTML with
MathML.
Realistically, for that to happen the community needs to get serious
about formalizing properly profiled use of LaTeX and disseminating the
tools and the know-how.
> Or we can try to clearly explain why MathML is important in general,
> for future users of it, as Neil did in mentioning education. Or we
> can wait another 15 years for adoption. (Seriously.)
If Johnny can't see math in web pages, isn't it reasonable for him
to conclude that math isn't very important?
But meanwhile, I am very thankful that we do have MathJax. By the
way, it's important not only to cover browsers that don't support
MathML but also to cover audiences who cannot be expected to acquire
specialized math fonts.
-- Bill
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 02:56:24 UTC