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, the font special-casing is uncool. See
http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-May/
006467.html
for how to help fix it in the non-stretchy case. In the stretchy
case, tight coupling with particular fonts will be required in the
foreseeable future.
Whereas George approach will work for any font you desire you
It doesn't "work". The result is ugly! We are supposed to marvel the
clothes, but the emperor is naked.
Developers prefer another couple of CSS rules rather than begin
from zero
with a unfriendly spec (MathML).
Developers? Gecko is already well past zero with MathML.
Addition of general purpose features is defined in CSS 2.1 and may be
addressed by brosers *in any case*. Last MSIE browser has
incremented its
native support for CSS 2.1 whereas continues ignoring MathML. The
inline-block CSS bug in Firefox is scheduled and will be fixed in a
future
version.
http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-June/
006551.html
http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-June/
006588.html
specially in next Tim Bray semantic web,
I think you confuse Tim Bray and Tim B-L.
Since XSL-FO
I don't understand why you keep bringing up XSL-FO. I assure you that
bringing up XSL-FO in almost every message doesn't help you make your
case.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
