[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rick Jelliffe said:
>
> Obviously XML is capable of representing the information. (Almost any
> syntax can.) Obviously modeling more than toy versions of human
> technologies (typesetting, mathematics, chemistry) is not trivial.
> Obviously there are tradeoffs, and deciding to make some things easy may
> in fact make other things hard. And, most obviously, when people master
> an existing tool, they can be loathe to adopt another. Consequently
> there will always be people who aren't served optimally or adequately by
> any single standard. That is why plurality is important. That a
> technology is not perfect just means it is a human technology.
Completely agree. I like alternative approaches compiting in equality of
conditions. Others no and reason that emphasize usage of specific
technologies they like.
> I'm with Peter, in that I had expected there would be more of a
> profusion of domain-specific browsers.
What one? for instance why a MathML native browser? why not just a
OpenMath browser? Why a CML browser? Why a XHTML browser? Etc.
Take a simple field academic -publishing on physical chemistry- would
users install a dozen of domain-specific browsers for accesing to
information: STMML, UnitsML, OpenMath extensions, p-MathML, c-MathML,
XHTML, XSLT, XSL-FO, ThermoML, CML...
All of that assuming that information _is good_ I have noticed some
academic journals of physics are serving {ds}^2 as 2s ds when using MathML
for the encoding.
>
> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe
>
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
|
