[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
• From: <juanrgonzaleza@c...>
• Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 03:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
• Importance: Normal

Henri Sivonen said:
> On Jul 15, 2006, at 16:31, <juanrgonzaleza@c...>
> <juanrgonzaleza@c...> wrote:
>
>> The WHATWG specification
> ...
>> and MathML was strongly rejected and after eliminated (recom.) from
>> the spec.
>
> I think the readers of xml-dev shouldn't jump to any conclusions
> based on Juan R.'s characterization of the discussion on the WHAT WG
> list.
>
> For those who are actually interested in looking at the archives, the
> subject of the thread is "Mathematics on HTML5" and it spans May and
> June in the WHAT WG mailing list archives:
> http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/

Well,

1) I would begin by citing your views on HTML5. For instance your heated
reply to editor's comment

> If we made MathML work in HTML, possibly with rules that make
> the syntax easier (by implying tags as I suggested earlier)

was

"The implied stuff seems scary. I was hoping for no more tag inference
beyond HTML 4 legacy."

2) You forget to say here that HTML5 spec (i.e. the draft) was
explicitely recommending the usage of MathML and that was eliminated in
a new version of the draft after discussion maintained at the list,

3) Resume of thoughts onn MathML and HTML5-Math

James Graham disagreed with MathML.

Oistein E. Andersen said "First of all, I must say that I applaud the
initiative to include tags for mathematics in HTML5 and that I really
hope that this will be part of the final specification."

Michel Fortin agreed with main proposals while adding further ideas and
criticism for the improvement of the basic mathematical markup draft
suggested.

Henri Sivonen (even if adding scary stuff about MathML, LaTeX and others
at the list) wrote, "First of all, I am not saying that MathML is
great."

Stefan Goessner highly appreciates a lightweight, pragamatic solution
for doing math on the web in a convenient way. And apointed that
solution could parallel MathML the same way as Canvas parallels SVG.

Martin Atkins wrote, "It seems to me that a good path would be to fix up
CSS's shortcomings (which have been discussed at length in this thread)
so that it is possible to specify math rendering with CSS." I.e. without
p-MathML.

Häkon Wium Lie expressed its personal interest to adding it to HTML5.
"Personally, I'm open to adding it to HTML5." Häkon Wium Lie also noted
that MathML and HTML5-Math both can co-exist just like WebForms and
XForms can co-exist today.

Alexey Feldgendler also agree with the idea of HTML5 math.

Mihai Sucan disagrees with the MathML way and wait for a new reliable
approach to math on the web.

---------
Therefore, i think that my previous message exclaiming the strong
rejection of MathML at the WHATWG, the fact that previous recommendation
(to MathML) was eliminated from the HTML5 spec (draft) and the fact that
only a small minory at the list was happy with MathML was accurate.
---------

Also Robert O'Callahan (Mozilla Layout team) wrote:

> From my point of view, a <fraction> element that can be implemented
> using inline-block in the UA style sheet seems like a reasonable thing
> to support in HTML5, since it's basically no effort and is a
> small increment over existing <sup> etc.


> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@i...
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>

P.S: You blamed agains CSS rendering of mathematics a lot of, writing
scary and inaccurate stuff often. I proposed at the list that i would
render math using both CSS and MathML approach and people could compare
both.

I already submit the first part of the experiment (more examples and
comparison in next data) on

[http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/07/rendering-mathematics-in-html-via-css.html]

However, i do not see you actively participating on the experiment ;-)

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

• Prev by Date: Re: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
• Next by Date: Re: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
• Previous by thread: Re: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
• Next by thread: Re: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread