[
Lists Home 
Date Index 
Thread Index
]
Paul Topping said:
> Juan R. said:
>
>> [http://www.whatwg.org/]
>>
>> [http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webappscdfws/papers/opera.html]
>>
>> MathML has been rejected by most *mathematicians* and a few days ago
> the
>> Web Applications ceased to recommend the usage of MathML in the spec.
>
> This is like saying English professors have rejected the OpenDocument
> format. MathML is a computer representation for math, not something
> humans (or mathematicians) are expected to type. MathML is alive and
> well, thank you very much:
The WHATWG specification rejected the recommendation to use MathML as
markup for next HTML5 and most of people at the list, including the editor
claimed his doubts about MathML. Moreover, even one of layout designers of
Mozilla browsers agreed on the introduction of the _alternative_ markup
for fractions in next HTML5. People at the list who find interesting the
approach and ugly MathML includes one of chiefs of w3c CSS, and people
with interest in scientific fields, or people working in mathematical
capabilities for the wiki. MathML was the dark horse with big difference.
In w3c math list, I introduced a link to 2006 talk by one of authors of
MathML tool, shown statistics on interest in MathML over last 5 years in
its server. Most of people rejected the TtM tool (MathML output) and
prefered the TtH. Both tools are using the _same_ input syntax. It was
MathML –a computer representation for math has been rejected by most
mathematicians.
In a recent reply to Miner in the same list, I introduced last friday
Google trends showing an increased lack of interest in MathML in last
years.
Many people has contacted with me since I began the original CanonMath
approach (XML based) and all disagree with MathML –the w3c computer
representation for math. The computer representation for math is so
inefficient that even something so simple as integral of sin x is not
correctly encoded in content MathML as proven in papers. I already cited
authors and works about that in the mathml list and in canonical science
today blog.
>  MathML is in the process of being added to the next version of DAISY
> (http://www.daisy.org/), an XML format for ebooks with special concern
> for accessibility. DAISY is part of the NIMAS standard which has been
> adopted in the reauthorization of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities
> Education Act), a US federal law.
I have extensively discussed and presented examples of MathML code
extracted from academic journals, educative sites, and blogs (e.g. Distler
one on string theory) in canonical science today. Accesibilitiy of code
was in almost all the cases poor what when using HTML and GIFs images!!!
>  "W3C Launches Math Working Group for MathML 3.0", 20060628
> (http://www.w3.org/Math/).
And one guy has already said to me in private
"I follow your blog, it is interesting. Note also that your efforts on
MathML side brought some positive results, if you read MathML 3 charter
you may note that they plan to develop standard non XML mathematical input
syntax for wikies and blogs.
It makes some sense (unless they once again will manage to produce
something completely inadequate)."
> The W3C Web Applications spec has probably dropped MathML from the list
> of formats they were working with because, unlike the name may imply,
> they are really focussed on standardizing a set of XML languages to be
> supported on mobile devices. MathML just is not important in that
> context. I know, I went to their kickoff meeting some time ago.
Your thoughts are completely incorrect. In last discussion about
mathematical markup in futures HTML and XHTML at the whatwg list, even one
of Mozilla developers agreed on that HTML5Math markup proposed for
fractions
<frac>
<num>b</num>
<den>2</den>
</frac>
could be incorporated without problems in the layout engine. That markup
is much more consistent and solid than MathML, and MathML was strongly
rejected and after eliminated (recom.) from the spec.
> (For the sake of complete full disclosure, my company's products support
> MathML and readers may be reasonably concerned about bias. However, I
> still stand by my position.)
>
> Paul Topping
> Design Science, Inc.
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL SCIENCE)
