On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, Simon Pieters wrote:
The spec asks whether quirks mode parsing should be adopted[1]. I think
it would be good if parsing worked more or less the same in quirks and
standards mode. If we want to adopt quirks mode parsing, then here are
some remarks:
Comment parsing
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, White Lynx wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Certainly. The question is how. There have been several proposals. My
recommendation to those who think it is possible to re-use CSS to get
an acceptable level of Math support would be to go through the
Microformats process to
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:20:25 +0700, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assuming that the people involved value their time at an average of $10
per hour, that's 3179 man-hours at $10 each, so $31,790 per element name.
Just wanted to point out: your calculations don't scale when a batch of new
On 17 Jun 2006, at 2:15PM, White Lynx wrote:
Oistein E. Andersen wrote:
The current proposal does not seem to include the following elements of
ISO-12083:
- fence with arbitrary delimiters (possibly not a good idea)
Probably it is better to list number of delimiters explicitly like in LaTeX.
Oistein E. Andersen wrote:
- labelled arrows [...]
'over' and 'under' elements can be used to put label above or below the
arrow (also it will not stretch arrow).
Do you mean that ISO-12083 labelled arrows are not supposed to stretch?
They are supposed to stretch, this is part of
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Since MathML does not fit into the WHATWG philosophy, I would
aknowledge information about your own solution to the problem of
mathematical markup on the web.
Oh please, cut the crap. Did you miss the message from Ian saying how
it could
James Graham wrote:
That's a really particular use case which is hardly representative of
the web as a whole. As sad as it is, 99.9% of authors have no use for
maths (otherwise all these problems would have been solved long ago).
Maths is certainly less of a core feature for most authors
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WHATWG doesn't have a position on this -- different contributors
have different opinions, and no clear consensus is being reached as
far as I can tell.
It has been taken one! The draft of the specification recommends the
James Graham wrote:
Except that XML will not work with HTML4.
XML = SVG therefore
Except that SVG will not work with HTML4.
[http://www.carto.net/papers/svg/samples/svg_html.shtml]
[http://www.december.com/html/tech/svg.html]
[http://www.december.com/html/demo/hellosvg.html]
One of the
**What is the goal?**
If I understand James and Ians statements correctly, the play is that
either one provides a perfect markup in less than 12 tags can offer us
dinamical pages with TeX quality for liquid layouts and generic web fonts
(even TeX cannot), was implemented in browsers with zero
James Graham wrote:
Is math really a core feature?
Yes, absolutely .. the upcoming microlearning / nanolearning units
inevitably need math.
That's a really particular use case which is hardly representative of
the web as a whole. As sad as it is, 99.9% of authors have no use for
maths
Quoting Stefan Gössner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I wish, that WHATWG would have a similar motivation to offer
lightweight math capabilities parallel to MathML, as they were
motivated to support vector graphics via the canvas element parallel
to SVG.
OMG. Have you even read what canvas is about? :-)
12 matches
Mail list logo
