Re: We should drop MathML

Yeah, somebody shared the link with me and I didn't notice the date. My bad. That said, I'm glad to hear that Firefox isn't seriously considering dropping MathML! Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Kingston

Re: We should drop MathML

Hi Phil, I'm going to say this isn't a plan I am aware of (the email you responded to is pretty old and no know progression since then). Various bugs are still being raised about modern MathML support (stylo is a new integration of servo's CSS rendering as part of the quantum project -

Re: We should drop MathML

On Sunday, May 5, 2013 at 11:38:39 AM UTC-4, Benoit Jacob wrote: > Hi, > > Summary: MathML is a vestigial remnant of the XML-everything era, and we > should drop it. > This is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard floated around Mozilla, dating back to the days when releases were numbered M1,

Re: We should drop MathML

Actually, MS is very clear on their position on MathML in Internet Explorer: http://status.modern.ie/mathml?term=mathML Well, status.modern.ie was published about a year after my message. Curiously enough, according to

Re: We should drop MathML

On Sunday, May 5, 2013 10:27:41 PM UTC-7, p.kraut...@gmail.com wrote: 2.1 you claim MathML never saw traction outside of Firefox. I tried to point out that MathML has huge traction in publishing and the educational sector, even if it wasn't visible on the web until MathJax came along. Google

Re: We should drop MathML

You guys should not be considering dropping MathML, not unless you want to hold back the next generation of Wikipedia (mathematical formulae hyperlinks) ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org

Re: We should drop MathML

I am not following this thread as I should; however a contributor from the Brazil community list was talking/planning a talk to the major conference in Brazil - about MathML. Since he is a 'mozillian, I have asked him to go through this whole thread and try to distill. And he did digging work

Re: We should drop MathML

What? Drop MathML? :| Is this some troll... it can't be serious. This is the most stupidest, retarded idea I've heard. MathML works perfectly, it's been W3C standard for ages. Dropping it would be like dropping CSS. Think about the Web... By the way I love XHTML :) XHTML+CSS+JS+SVG+MathML =

Re: We should drop MathML

On 2/11/2014, 10:19 AM, Dāvis Mosāns wrote: What? Drop MathML? While you're not doing much to endear anyone to your position here, my understanding is that we're not dropping MathML and we'll still take patches from people who'd like to improve it. - mhoye

Re: We should drop MathML

I am an educator struggling to incorporate mathematics in my online tutorials and mathematical games etc. I cannot use MathJax: It is asynchronous, and my code, which requires generating HTML and typeset mathematical formulas on the fly, would cease to function under MathJax unless I was to

Re: We should drop MathML

On 5/28/13 8:22 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: When I started this thread, I didn't even conceive that one would want to apply style to individual pieces of an equation. Someone gave the example of applying a color to e.g. a square root sign, to highlight it; I don't believe much in the pedagogic value

Re: We should drop MathML

I think the main points were: 1) Not everybody use TeX as an input method. 2) Not everybody write the source of Web pages by hand. 3) People using TeX want its full power (defining macros, loading packages etc). So except in simple and limited cases, a small subset of TeX is not what people

Re: We should drop MathML

On 04/06/13 23:30, Jonas Sicking wrote: It would be cool to find a solution that makes the simple things simpler than MathML, while keeping the complicated things possible. Isn't the answer to that sort of question normally something like: a mini-language for simple math, plus a JS library you

Re: We should drop MathML

Regarding EPUB3, I don't think anyone said the whole format should be supported natively in browsers. An EPUB file is basically just a set of HTML5 pages (HTML, SVG, MathML and CSS) packed into an archive, together with additional metadata to describe the ebook content (title, author, chapters,

Re: We should drop MathML

2013/5/28 Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.com wrote: I also thought that it was obvious that a suitably chosen subset of TeX could be free of such unwanted characteristics. So basically that would involve inventing

Re: We should drop MathML

Hi Isaac, What I meant by matter of taste is that while some people find advanced presentation styles, such as the one you mention, useful, other people find them to be just toys. I belong to the latter category, but have no hope of convincing everyone else of my views, so I'd rather just call it

Re: We should drop MathML

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.com wrote: I also thought that it was obvious that a suitably chosen subset of TeX could be free of such unwanted characteristics. So basically that would involve inventing something new that currently does not exist and are

Re: We should drop MathML

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/5/5 Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org One other thing: EPUB publishers are screaming for good math support for textbooks (and currently that means they want MathML). They're mostly Webkit-based, and maybe

Re: We should drop MathML

Even Raymond Chen wants better MathML support? http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2013/05/08/10416823.aspx#comments ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: We should drop MathML

* About the XML is evil, MathML is XML so MathML is evil syllogism. I don't think it makes sense in general to say that something is good or bad without mentioning for what purpose. I actually agree with Joshua that XML is a good format to work with for a computer engineer. There are very good

Re: We should drop MathML

Hello everyone! This thread has raised my attention and I would like to share my opinions, maybe as a school child who used mathematical software for WYSIWYG editing (not only reading!), as the primary way of editing any math, as a primary/fundamental tool for computer-aided learning. I was

Re: We should drop MathML

On 5/6/2013 7:20 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: Hopefully Web Components will provide a good solution to let authors extend the browser with support for vocabularies that can be rendered via a straightforward decomposition to HTML or MathML or SVG. I think the layout requirements of MathML are

Re: We should drop MathML

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:11:22 PM UTC+2, fred...@mathjax.org wrote: I use many long inline formulas in my blog and this is handled as I would like by Gecko. sorry I meant this is *not* handled ___ dev-platform mailing list

Re: We should drop MathML

I'm coming late to this thread but I have to say that the misunderstanding present in the original post is huge. The author can take refuge in that he's made a common category mistake. MathML is a computer representation for math, TeX is a human input language. MathML was never intended

Re: We should drop MathML

I'd argue that any machine parsable format can't be ambiguous by virtue of the fact machines parse it. However in any case AtkText / IAccessibleText / the mac accessible protocol thing all expect the text for an object to be a string so whatever format the web uses screen readers will be

Re: We should drop MathML

Math accessibility is a surprisingly complex subject. How math should be read is dependent on the mathematical or scientific context in which the math is embedded, the educational level of the user, and their familiarity with the accessibility technology itself. In our grant work with the

Re: We should drop MathML

Let me go on a bit of a rampage about TeX for a bit. TeX is not a markup format. It is an executable code format. It is a programming language by design! (It's a very poor programming language, but let's ignore that for the moment.) You run a TeX program to generate the rendered output. This has

Re: We should drop MathML

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote: wrote my thesis which also include a lot of semantics and type theory in FrameMaker, which was actually pretty good but is very dead. Correction: it's alive! Amazing. Rob -- q“qIqfq qyqoquq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq

Re: We should drop MathML

On Monday, 6 May 2013 07:27:41 UTC+2, p.kraut...@gmail.com wrote: Microsoft indeed remains a mystery. Not so much when it comes to Microsoft Office: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/murrays/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org

Re: We should drop MathML

On 05/06/2013 05:46 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: Let me just reply to a few points to keep this conversation manageable: 2013/5/5 p.krautzber...@gmail.com Here are a couple of reasons why dropping MathML would be a bad idea. (While I wrote this others made some of the points as well.) * MathML is

Re: We should drop MathML

Thanks Peter: that point-for-point format makes it easier for me to understand your perspective on the issues that I raised. 2013/5/6 p.krautzber...@gmail.com Benoit, you said you need proof that MathML is better than TeX. I think it's the reverse at this point (from a web perspective --

Re: We should drop MathML

2013/5/6 Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org Let me go on a bit of a rampage about TeX for a bit. TeX is not a markup format. It is an executable code format. It is a programming language by design! Yes, but a small subset of TeX could be purely a markup format, not a programming

Re: We should drop MathML

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 07:27:08AM -0400, Benoit Jacob wrote: 2013/5/6 Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org We expose HTML and SVG content to Web applications by structuring that content as a tree and then exposing it using standard DOM APIs. These APIs let you examine, manipulate,

Re: We should drop MathML

On 5/6/13 7:27 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: I guess I don't see the usefulness of allowing to apply style to individual parts of an equation Styling parts of an equation with different colors can be _extremely_ useful for readability. It's rarely done in print, of course, and I assume there are

Re: We should drop MathML

On 5/6/2013 6:27 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: I guess I don't see the usefulness of allowing to apply style to individual parts of an equation --- applying a single style to an entire equation would be plenty enough as far as I can see. Suppose you were writing an introductory explanation course,

Re: We should drop MathML

I don't have time to respond right now, but regarding the accessibility, mathematics is also more complex in that case too. Basically the two use cases are I'm aware of are - For blind people or other visual disabilities, speech synthesizer must follow the MathSpeak rules. Simply reading the

Re: We should drop MathML

On Monday, 6 May 2013 14:12:48 UTC+1, Trevor Saunders wrote: On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:24:07AM -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: I am still waiting for the rebuttal of my arguments, in the original email in this thread, about how TeX is strictly better than MathML for the particular task of

Re: We should drop MathML

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 11:30:51AM -0700, mscl...@googlemail.com wrote: On Monday, 6 May 2013 14:12:48 UTC+1, Trevor Saunders wrote: On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:24:07AM -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: I am still waiting for the rebuttal of my arguments, in the original email in this

Re: We should drop MathML

On 5/6/2013 2:12 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: How many specific domains will want to have their own domain-specific markup language next? Chemistry? Biology? Electronics? Music? Flow charts? Calligraphy? MathML specifies mathematical formulae, which is not domain-specific, and is itself a building

Re: We should drop MathML

2013/5/6 Joshua Cranmer  pidgeo...@gmail.com On 5/6/2013 2:12 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: How many specific domains will want to have their own domain-specific markup language next? Chemistry? Biology? Electronics? Music? Flow charts? Calligraphy? MathML specifies mathematical formulae,

Re: We should drop MathML

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.comwrote: How many specific domains will want to have their own domain-specific markup language next? Chemistry? Biology? Electronics? Music? Flow charts? Calligraphy? This is a good question to ask, but I think it would help

Re: We should drop MathML

Hopefully Web Components will provide a good solution to let authors extend the browser with support for vocabularies that can be rendered via a straightforward decomposition to HTML or MathML or SVG. I think the layout requirements of MathML are too onerous for MathML to be reduced to HTML or

Re: We should drop MathML

Benoit Jacob wrote: Can we focus on the other conversation now: should the Web have a math-specific markup format at all? I claim it shouldn't; I mostly mentioned TeX as a if we really wanted one side note and let it go out of hand. How many specific domains will want to have their own

Re: We should drop MathML

Four points here. 1. We're assuming that MathJax is as good with MathML as it is without it, but perhaps we could ask the MathJax folks to comment on whether this is true. I'd certainly be a lot more comfortable dropping MathML if the MathJax folks said there was no point. 2. A suitable

Re: We should drop MathML

2013/5/5 Justin Lebar justin.le...@gmail.com Four points here. 1. We're assuming that MathJax is as good with MathML as it is without it, but perhaps we could ask the MathJax folks to comment on whether this is true. I'd certainly be a lot more comfortable dropping MathML if the MathJax

Re: We should drop MathML

I'm not sure if that's a joke or complete misinformation about the topic. But obviously the answer is that the MathML support must be preserved. The MathJax team is strongly in favor of native MathML implementation. ___ dev-platform mailing list

Re: We should drop MathML

It's not a joke. Could you elaborate on this? In particular, as I wrote to the MathJax list, I would be very interested in knowing what regressions the removal of MathML would incur as far as MathJax is concerned. Benoit 2013/5/5 fred.w...@mathjax.org I'm not sure if that's a joke or

Re: We should drop MathML

1.2.2. TeX is very friendly to manual writing, being concise and close to natural notation, with limited overhead (some backslashes and curly braces), while MathML is as tedious to handwrite as any other XML-based format. An example is worked out at

Re: We should drop MathML

2013/5/5 Wesley Johnston wjohns...@mozilla.com 1.2.2. TeX is very friendly to manual writing, being concise and close to natural notation, with limited overhead (some backslashes and curly braces), while MathML is as tedious to handwrite as any other XML-based format. An example is worked

Re: We should drop MathML

Here are a couple of reasons why dropping MathML would be a bad idea. (While I wrote this others made some of the points as well.) * MathML is part of HTML5 and epub3. * Gecko has the very best native implementation out there, only a few constructs short of complete. * Killing it off means

Re: We should drop MathML

On 5/5/2013 6:40 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: Well, I have written hundreds of pages of TeX; for sure, some large equations would expand over more than one line of TeX, but I can't remember going over more than 5 lines of TeX source (without custom helper macros) per actual line of output, that that