Le 5 juin 2006 à 9:51, White Lynx a écrit :

Sketch of the proposal is available, comments are welcome.
At this stage prose is far from being polished, but I hope it is readable.

Ok, so let's comment. First I'd say I like the path you've taken. I like the fact that you make it easy to author formulas directly in HTML.

One thing I dislike however is the distinction you makes between the <formula> and the <dformula> elements, which I'd think is confusing. Sometimes, formulas are alone on their line but still in the middle of a sentence. That formula should have "display: block" with CSS but still be considered as an inline element form the HTML point of view (so it can be put in a paragraph). At other times, formulas are inserted outside paragraphs, as an HTML block. I think it would be better to have only one <formula> element which would be a structured inline-level element[1].

 [1]: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#structured

I would also use <f> instead of <formula> (as Juan used in one of his example), because it's shorter and fits well with many other wildly used container elements: <p>, <h1>-<h6>, <ol>, <ul>, <li>, <dl>, <dt>, and <dd>.

And I'm somewhat skeptical of the usage you plan for the formula group element. Is there a case where placing formulas one after the other would be inappropriate?

Fractions: seems all fine to me. Maybe we could use <frac> instead of <fraction> (just like we have <div>, <ins>, <del>, <em>), but it's not all that important.

Nothing to say about radicals: it's well put.

Under scripts and under braces, over scripts and over braces: Is it useful to have distinct <ubase> and <obase>? And the whole concept reminds of the Ruby Annotation module of XHTML 1.1 [2] and Ruby in CSS 3 [3]. Maybe some parts of that model could be reused. Maybe we could even add Ruby (or a derivative of it) to HTML 5 and use it in formulas and elsewhere.

 [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/
 [3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ruby/

More comments to come...


Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.michelf.com/


Reply via email to