- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:33:00 +0100
- To: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
- CC: Grégory Pakosz <gpakosz@myscript.com>, "'www-math@w3.org'" <www-math@w3.org>
On 26/06/2014 01:36, William F Hammond wrote: > Anyway, with hindsight it seems clear to me that named > children for mfrac, msub, ..., mstack would have been better > because it would have made a bit less work for rendering engines > and processors. It's not that clear it would be better. Even now , if we get negative comments about mathml (eg as an excuse for not implementing it some system or other)., the main complaint is that it is too verbose. Using named children would not exactly help that case. Changing <mfrac><mn>1</mn><mn>2</mn><</mfrac> to <mfrac><numerator><mn>1</mn></numerator><denominator><mn>2</mn></denominator></mfrac> makes it considerably more verbose with no extra information content, David
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 09:33:39 UTC