James Graham said:
Of course, if you plan to put all the semantics of a document in the
class names, we could do away with many elements. Do you object to div
class=h1 as a replacement for h1?
I am reading this thread with interest but i have nothing serious to say.
However, i would ask
Jonathan Worent said:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Worent said:
I think a level attribute is better than nesting because it allows
for reducing the emphasis/importance below normal. Nesting can only
increase this.
Not necesarily.
emlevel-1emlevel-2/em/em
em
Jonathan Worent said:
I have just recently become interested in the work WHATWG is doing. I
apologize if something like this has already been suggested.
I'd like to suggest adding a level attribute to both em and strong tags.
This attribute would be used to set the level of
I have updated a post on Canonical Science Today with screenshoots of
mathematical formulae rendered with a Firefox 1.0 browser without the
special fonts over Windows XP.
[http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/07/rendering-mathematics-in-html-via-css.html]
Apparently some people at the list
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
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
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
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
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:
No it is not. You have demonstrated that CSS can do a mediocre job at
simple mathematics. This is not an unimpressive achievement but neither
does it suggest that general maths layout based purely on CSS is
possible without substantial modifications to CSS itself.
?istein E. Andersen wrote:
Conversion to MathML is obviously more difficult because the base has to
be found and encoded explicitly. Still, I do _not_ say that conversion
from TeX to HTML5 will be trivial in all cases.
Then we agree. As stated a the beginning of discussion by some, TeX
?istein E. Andersen wrote:
root3of125/root was already proposed in HTML Math of 1994 and
rejected because technical issues. Also rejected in ISO12083 math of
1995.
What i meant was to use root3of125/root as a shorthand notation
for something like rootorder3/orderof125/of/root, in which
case
James Graham wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Graham wrote:
I could go on but
at least in academic fields, LaTeX is either the only format
accepted for publication or the preferred format.
In mathematics, and theoretical physics sure, in rest of science? I
doubt. In chemistry,
Henri Sivonen wrote:
My point was that math rendering tends to be addressed by a guy with a
mission rather than companies if the companies decide, on business
grounds, to prioritize their todo lists differently. For example, TeX
and Gecko-MathML were both created using the guy with a
Some people has prompted to reuse LaTeX.
People who want reuse LaTeX can do it, in the same way that one can
reuse existing jsMath. However, mixing of two different languages is
usually considered to be a bad practice. For example x 5 is okay in TeX
but prohibited in XML. A = 3$ amp; B = 5%
Ian Hickson wrote:
I would say MathML is not widely used because MathML doesn't work in
HTML, personally.
I do not know from where this idea get up. SVG is relatively popular and
implemented in many browsers, but the same browsers implementing SVG are
rejecting MathML. They are rejecting
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I think it is an economic problem rather than a technical problem.
Yes, this may be reason that a single man was able to do math in a browser
via XML-MAIDEN project in a few months, whereas dozens of others and even
entire communities cannot do it even after of 10 years.
Michel Fortin wrote:
One thing I know however is that the next time I'll have to put an
equation on a web page, I won't go looking for a MathML editor just to
be able to generate the markup, convert the page to XHTML served as
application/xhtml+xml (so that it works with MathML) and ask
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I said that math needs to integrate with the surrounding prose. I did
not say that MathML is integrated right. The point was mainly that
there needs to be an XML syntax rendered by the same engine as the
prose--or at minimum the renderers need to communicate the baseline
James Graham wrote:
I could go on but
at least in academic fields, LaTeX is either the only format accepted
for publication or the preferred format.
In mathematics, and theoretical physics sure, in rest of science? I doubt.
In chemistry, LaTeX is not preferred for example.
Note also that
James Graham wrote:
H?kon Wium Lie wrote:
I think you make a compelling case for adding math to HTML the simple
way. Personally, I'm open to adding it to HTML5. How much would it add
to the specification?
I remain sceptical about this.
This appears to be not an optimistic attitude. Let
James Graham wrote:
No. I propose that the [X|HT]ML syntax follows the LaTeX model as
closely as possible within the constraints imposed by the XML data
model. This should make it easy for people to write converters which is
the _only_ thing that matters for high adoption.
Do you claim
I have read with great interest this program and I would recommend
reconsideration of the role of mathematical markup in HTML5. But I would
first explain a my position. Initially, I began believing that web
authoring was save as command in Mword. Next I begin to work with a real
HTML tool and
28 matches
Mail list logo
