Re: Interop 2024

Hi Brian,

Yes, "interop" is a great mechanism. But browser vendors don't care what is
"important to me" - they didn't in 2013, and they still don't today.

The realistic question in my mind is what needs to be strategically
accomplished/prepared by the WG for an interop request to succeed in
September 2024 (or 2025, or 2026...).
Securing funding and recruiting browser representatives to join the Math WG
are indeed highly impactful (and high difficulty).

To quote your own words (which I agree with):
"We are very likely to face the same thing that we faced last year: that
math is no one's priority."

(minuted at )

I would certainly support a group vote that selects a small MathML
implementation issue, with very narrow technical scope, which we then
collectively offer for "interop" consideration.
I suspect it still won't be picked up, but at least we'll maximize our
chances if we suggest something that looks really painless to fix.


On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 4:41 PM Brian Kardell <> wrote:

> Interop is the single best venue you have to make a case to all of the
> vendors at once that something is important to you.  Not only that, but new
> stuff + interop are taking priorities so getting something beyond those is
> extra hard unless we find someone to fund the work - which, while we have
> done it thanks to a few sources -  seems to have limits for math :)
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 10:51 AM Deyan Ginev <>
> wrote:
>> Hi Neil, all,
>> Is the interop effort a good place for Math WG members to independently
>> start filing new issues? I am a little hesitant, myself.
>> Wouldn't it make more sense to first see if we have buy-in from the
>> respective browser vendors (and meet any conditions to gain that)?
>> Once we hear back a "soft yes" from the right vendors, we could file an
>> interop issue to make things official.
>> Experience seems to show that "cold outreach" requests don't move the
>> needle too much in MathML browser land.
>> I can certainly imagine making CSS support for MathML Core a public
>> "implementation priority" for the Math WG, where we do enough liaison work
>> to have backing for a small number of features to gain parity.
>> At which point there may be a then-successful interop issue for 2025 (or
>> 2026,...)
>> Just thinking out loud,
>> Deyan
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 1:23 AM Neil Soiffer <>
>> wrote:
>>> To give a little context to Brian's message, the interop effort is an
>>> effort to make browsers behave the same/have the same features so
>>> developers can count on a feature working in all main browsers when they
>>> use the feature.
>>> MathML core has some significant features missing from Webkit/Safari and
>>> Gecko/Firefox. This means that you can't really use a number of features in
>>> MathML core. For example, you can't use CSS with MathML in Safari or
>>> Firefox. This is a major frustration for me as a MathML full polyfill
>>> author because I can't do some of the polyfills without having to target
>>> each browser separately. I know I've seen others complain about this and
>>> other issues.
>>> This is your chance to make the case for why some of the top
>>> implementers in the browser world should concentrate on some feature. As
>>> Brian has said more than once, there are A LOT of things outside of math
>>> that need attention. We need to make a little noise if we are ever going to
>>> get some math features to rise to the level of even being considered. If
>>> you have bumped your head into some cross-platform issue with MathML Core,
>>> say something by filing a Focus Area Proposal issue. The odds of it getting
>>> addressed are not high, but the odds are zero if you don't file an issue.
>>>     Neil
>>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 11:11 PM Brian Kardell <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Is now open:
>>>> The core group had requested i let them know when it was.
> --
> Brian Kardell :: @briankardell ::

Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2023 22:27:27 UTC