[whatwg] Mathematics in HTML5
whitelynx at operamail.com
Wed Jun 7 23:50:43 PDT 2006
Michel Fortin wrote:
> 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.
It is comon practice in LaTeX, ISO 12083 and AAP Math DTD to distinguish
inline and block level formulae. Technically it is not a problem to use single element,
but it is less convenient for authoring. Your suggestion is accepatble, but I would prefer
to keep current solution. What others think about issue?
> 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>.
Makes sense. In proposal we used ISO 12083 naming conventions, but it is open issue and
if majority prefer shorter element names that "f" anf "df" for formulae can be used
(and were used for example in AAP Math and Elsevier Math DTDs).
> And I'm somewhat skeptical of the usage you plan for the formula
> group element.
Currently it is rarely used, but still may be useful when why needs to mark
system of equations, with individual equations being marked using "dformula" container
> 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.
Maybe. If majority prefer "frac" let it be so.
> Under scripts and under braces, over scripts and over braces: Is it
> useful to have distinct <ubase> and <obase>?
Basically it is useless. One notation may be used for both.
> And the whole concept
> reminds of the Ruby Annotation module of XHTML 1.1  and Ruby in
> CSS 3 .
Apart of the fact that Ruby can not be nested (Ruby inside Ruby is not allowed)
and can not be rendered using CSS2.1 (appropriate CSS3 module is required).
> 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.
No due to nesting limitations and CSS related issues mentioned above.
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze
More information about the whatwg