Re: Interop 2024

Today we can put a bow on this www-math thread.

Following active encouragement, the group tried to pitch a small Interop
2024 issue on MathML+CSS back in October:
https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/556

With 65 netizens taking time from their busy days to upvote the issue and
indicate MathML has continued relevance.

And today we were officially ignored:
https://webkit.org/blog/14955/the-web-just-gets-better-with-interop/

Then again, JPEG XL was also shelved, and they even pleaded in song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJaa1Le4W7c

Better luck next time?

Greetings,
Deyan


On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 6:57 PM Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:

> It does seem that it would be harder to claim that it is important and
> should be paid attention to and prioritized if  - when the vendors say
> "here we are, what do you need?" we get like 180 submissions and none of
> them are about MathML-Core interop.  How would you see it?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 6:51 PM Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> I plan on having this on the agenda for Thursday.
>>
>> @Brian: is it at all helpful if we identify the problems caused by the
>> lack of interop? Or is a more positive "this is what it enables" tone
>> better?
>>
>>     Neil
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 3:27 PM Deyan Ginev <deyan.ginev@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> https://github.com/w3c/mathml-core/issues/206#issuecomment-1736177722 )
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Deyan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 4:41 PM Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <deyan.ginev@gmail.com>
>>>> 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 <soiffer@alum.mit.edu>
>>>>> 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 <bkardell@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is now open:
>>>>>>> https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/new/choose
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The core group had requested i let them know when it was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: bkardell.com
>>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: bkardell.com
>