• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
• From: <juanrgonzaleza@c...>
• Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 07:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <200607171242.k6HCgtaA010528@e...>
• References: <3168.217.124.69.240.1153047008.squirrel@w...> <D04ADC06-ED24-4B67-A649-185F2585D401@i...> <200607171242.k6HCgtaA010528@e...>

David Carlisle said:
>
> How did this thread get hijacked onto MathML?, still...

Maybe MathML is an XML application after all and fits into "The Best
Technologies Don't Win" or why w3c propaganda matters.

> It's easy to make a version of the MathML DTD compatible with the SGML
> declaration for HTML rather than the standard one which is compatible
> with (the SGML declaration for) XML.

"To convince" a HTML parser may be easy that most of people at the list
found unlikely the MathML approach and explicitely claimed for a workable
alternative.

> David
>
>

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

• References:
  • Re: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
    • From: <juanrgonzaleza@c...>
  • Re: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
    • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>
  • Re: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: md5sum / sha1sum for XML?
• Next by Date: Basic namespace question
• Previous by thread: Re: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
• Next by thread: HTML 5 vs XHTML 2 (was: The Best Technologies Don't Win)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread