Michel Fortin wrote:
Bugs will need to
be fixed with many CSS engines,
Withdrawing proposal does not mean that this bugs need not to be fixed.
They has to be fixed in any case.
and even then the current markup
proposal isn't something I'd call pretty even for simpler structures
Ian Hickson wrote:
There is nothing to read between my lines. I am being as honest and candid
as possible. There is no conspiracy here. I have given you the exact
reasoning I have used, I have suggested how you can move forward. I am
being quite sincere.
Very well. In this case please
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:43:23 +0700, White Lynx [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Very well. In this case please make one small step to show that WHATWG
HTML is open to scientific content and add just four elements to HTML5
(feel free to use different element names if nesessary): formula,
fraction,
Michel Fortin wrote:
Something that's definitely missing for
elementary algebra is a construct capable of representing a fraction.
So I propose that HTML 5 adds fractions, and only fractions.
Yes please, that would be a great start. It is quite cheap and a
reasonable way to get a certain
Robert O'Callahan 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.
Thus fractions work in MSIE,
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
How should formula be used? There has been some discussion about it.
In case when everything is reduced to fractions and simple indices,
it can be optional. But having such an element is still important for those
who want to mark formulae explictly.
I've never said
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:47:42 +0700, White Lynx [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How should formula be used? There has been some discussion about it.
In case when everything is reduced to fractions and simple indices,
it can be optional. But having such an element is still important for
those who
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) It has been proven that via Standard CSS 2.1 not designed for math
one can render math better than browsers with native support (as
Firefox 1.0) and infinitely better than MSIE, Safari, and Opera
(rendering natively zero
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:20:28 +0700, White Lynx [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How should formula be used? There has been some discussion about it.
In case when everything is reduced to fractions and simple indices,
it can be optional. But having such an element is still important for
those who
Le 20 juin 2006 à 3:40, White Lynx a écrit :
Yes. The same markup is used in ISO 12083, AAP Math DTD and most of
other DTDs
that I have seen, modulo naming conventions this markup is:
fraction
numnumerator/num
dennumerator/den
/fraction
That was what I had in mind. I used to prefer frac
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jun 20, 2006, at 10:42, White Lynx wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
There are only stretchy brackets.
No stretchy parentheses or braces in sight.
Did you check fences part at http://www.geocities.com/chavchan/css/
annotated.css
I didn't. I checked the sample
On Jun 20, 2006, at 15:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, it look better that via native
MathML support browsers (without downloading and installing special
fonts).
Comparing anything to a MathML implementation without giving the
MathML impl the fonts it needs is totally bogus.
Yes,
Robert O'Callahan wrote:
I'll speak up as one of the Mozilla layout developers, but speaking only
for myself.
Since we already have a MathML implementation --- which works fairly
well in my experience ---
Do you mean structurally invalid, inacessible, not searchable, and
sometimes
White Lynx wrote:
The difference between fractions and the rest of proposal is that markup
for fractions is the same across many DTDs and it is hard to imagine
something different (only W3C can). Thus markup for fractions is more or
less unique. In the rest of proposal uniqueness it is not
14 matches
Mail list logo
