- From: Mark P. Line <mark@polymathix.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:35:45 -0500 (CDT)
- To: www-math@w3.org
juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: > > Mark P. Line wrote: >> Had the W3C asked *me* to design an XML-conformant math content >> standard, >> I'm sure the result would be far superior to content MathML for my >> purposes. But they didn't, so it's not. But I'll live. Even if I did >> choose to come up with my own language, I'd still be translating MathML >> into a subset of it. The train has already left the station. > > And how someone (MathML exceptic) said, a train to nowhere. > "toot, toot" Do you agree with the MathML sceptic who said it's a train to nowhere? Explain your answer. > P.S: I agree with you that the train left the station but would add that > just arrived to off-line publishing of math (e.g. publishers worflow). So, your claim is that off-line publishing of math (or STM, which is probably what you mean) is the only successful application ___domain for MathML? That's clearly false, so what is your real reason for saying something like that here? I have to assume you're not just trying to stir up random trouble, so I guess I'm at a loss. > Precisely, the CSS rendering is being here proposed _is focused to online > mathematics_ both XML and HTML: Why would I be interested in CSS rendering, or any other kind of rendering? -- Mark Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TX
Received on Thursday, 20 July 2006 16:35:56 UTC