- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:19:37 +0900
- To: Paul Topping <pault@dessci.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 04:49, Paul Topping <pault@dessci.com> wrote: > > So it looks like MathML will lose yet another battle. I'm sure it will survive this ding like it has all the others. I don't think that is true. We are not saying that we refuse to help MathML. We are saying that a MathML MQ would not help MathML, and therefore is not worth doing. I have heard: - We'd like a MathML MQ, because it would help - It would not help, here is why I have not heard: - Yes it would help, **here is how** Statements that it is important to support MathML will not lead to progress in this discussion unless they come with an explanation of *how* this Media Query would help. If you want this MQ, I suggest trying to frame an explanation along these lines: 1) Here's the best we can do about including math in an ePub / web page today, without the MQ <insert concrete example with code sample or high level description of the code> 2) Here is what we could do if we had the MathML MQ <insert concrete example with code sample or high level description of the code> 3) here is how 2) is better than 1) for users A B and C in environment X Y or Z alternative 3) here is how it is just as good for users, but simpler for authors If we had that, people could argue about whether 1 is indeed the best we can do, and whether 2 is indeed an improvement over it. If we ended up agreeing, you'd get the MQ. If we ended up disproving it, we'd all have learned about the current best way to do math on the web, and could document that. - Florian
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2016 03:20:06 UTC