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 mathml).
I don'
On Jun 19, 2006, at 19:12, Stefan Gössner wrote:
Assuming the microformat solution will work -- and that it will
work is already proven by George's implementation --
Did you actually look at George's implementation? It doesn't work.
Sorry for appearing rude, but someone has to say it: The b
Le 19 juin 2006 à 10:25, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
In other words math proposal is rejected, mathematics in HTML is
blocked one more time.
I have suggested a process by which you could prove your proposal
would
work. That is hardly a rejection.
Some people can r
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
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 element parallel
to SVG.
OMG. Have you even read wha
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 element parallel
to SVG.
OMG. Have you even read what is about? :-)
--
Anne va
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 (o
**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 c
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
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
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
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 s
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
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:
>>- with arbitrary delimiters (possibly not a good idea)
>Probably it is better to list number of delimiters explicitly like in LaTe
Ian Hickson wrote:
> It can be based on XML
> if that is what the Microformats process shows is best.
> The point is to show the maturity of your proposal before it is put into
> HTML
Mature working draft? Sounds interesting. ISO 12083 is the most mature
mathematical
markup, we just suggested
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
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 pr
16 matches
Mail list logo
