- From: Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:16:52 +0200
- To: www-tag@w3.org, "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABqxo81vqANF88TGh_S6SS6g4TOWPUa8shXCUEDWWmK3fOnBVw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi, Chaals wrote: > The implication is effectively that it gets a banner, saying we think you should be looking at something else if you want to implement MathML. (Where "something else" refers to MathML 3 as opposed to MathML 1 and 2.) This sounds like a very good idea. > If there is some significant level of MathML 2 support in deployed stuff that people use, that isn't matched by MathML 3 support then it may make sense to keep both [...] >From our experience at MathJax, there are extremely few cases of MathML 2 content that is not compatible with MathML 3 (and causes issues). My unsubstantiated estimate would be that we have one case per year appearing on our radar. I can't recall any of these being a major problem to resolve. So marking MathML 1 and 2 as obsolete seems very sensible. Best, Peter. -- Peter Krautzberger, MathJax Manager mathjax.org <http://www.mathjax.org/> | fb.com/mathjax | @mathjax <http://twitter.com/mathjax> Support MathJax - Become a Sponsor! <http://www.mathjax.org/sponsors/mathjax-sponsorship-program/> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:22 AM, <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > Dear mathemagicians and others, > > this discussion is taking place on the W3C TAG mailing list, and your > input might be helpful there... > > cheers > > Chaals > > -------- Пересылаемое сообщение -------- > 27.04.2017, 00:48, "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>: > > Hi David, > > 27.04.2017, 00:23, "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>: > > > MathML 1 and 2 - there is a version 3 > > > > As you note the Math WG is currently in cold storage however you could > > flag this on the www-math list. > > I'll send a pointer to this discussion onto the www-math list. > > [...thanks for explaining in more detail...] > > That would leave MathML 2.0 2nd edition and MathML 3.0 2nd edition. > > > > In these versions MathML 2 is with only very minor exceptions a > > compatible subset of MathML 3, and so it possibly makes sense to leave > > that so any implementations that don't implement the additional features > > can claim they support MathML 2 rather than support some MathML 3 > > subset, but they could probably claim that anyway. I'm not clear to be > > honest what are the implications of marking a spec obsolete, is it just > > that it gets a banner added in place saying that it is obsolete (and > > pointing at the newer spec) or is there more to it? > > The implication is effectively that it gets a banner, saying we think you > should be looking at something else if you want to implement MathML. The > specs are still formally W3C Recommendations, and the text is of course > available, so if anyone wants to check their conformance specifically to > e.g. MathML 1.0 they can do so, and there is a recognition that > "obsoletion" might happen prematurely, e.g. because for some reason a whole > new industry develops around MathML 1 - so it is meant to be relatively > straightforward to reverse in such cases. > > If there is some significant level of MathML 2 support in deployed stuff > that people use, that isn't matched by MathML 3 support then it may make > sense to keep both of them, in the same way that Martin noted for the XSLT > example. > > cheers, and thanks for the input. I hope we get more from people who > specifically know MathML… > > chaals > > -- > Charles McCathie Nevile - standards - Yandex > chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com > -------- Конец пересылаемого сообщения -------- > > -- > Charles McCathie Nevile - standards - Yandex > chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com > >

Received on Thursday, 27 April 2017 07:17:27 UTC