[whatwg] Mathematics in HTML5
juanrgonzaleza at canonicalscience.com
juanrgonzaleza at canonicalscience.com
Tue Jun 20 08:38:21 PDT 2006
"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 so obvious,
> but basically it is still there.
I mean, once you cheaply implement the generic construct
<content-tag>
<tag1>aaaa</tag1>
<tag2>bbbb</tag2>
</content-tag>
for fractions in HTML5 as appears that all of us here achieve consensus
(including one from Mozilla Team) the implementation of the *same*
construct for sup-sub and under-over is trivial since only real changes
are on the stylesheet rules (e.g. no line for tag1 etc.), and could be
done if developers and authors agree. I would find it good.
I assume that authors agree. Therefore, now is matter for developers, they
have the last word.
Michel Fortin wrote:
> ... and, by using custom stylesheets for these browsers, it can also
> work reasonably well in current versions of Gecko and Safari, both
> with unperfect but not-too-bad vertical alignement. The whole
> fraction would be vertically centered instead of having its bar
> aligned relative to the text baseline, which would give mostly the
> same result unless the numerator and the denominator have different
> heights. The only issue is how to feed them with a separate
> stylesheet...
and even with so one tiny implementation, rendering could be improved
easily. For instance using a % vertical align rule firefox 1.0 is able to
render fractions also with denominators of arbitrary size including nested
fractions as that in the MathML test suite.
Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> On Jun 20, 2006, at 15:26, <juanrgonzaleza at canonicalscience.com> 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.
Then you are not reading this mailing list during last weeks since
rendering problems remain even using special fonts in Mozilla.
>> 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.
No. Many people is displaying math without MathML and find it *nice*. Ugly
is a subjective word. Moreover, wait a few days until I can update
canonical science today and participate in the game. If CSS approach looks
so ugly you would be able to differentiate formulas constructed via CSS
and via MathML, no?
>> 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.
A Mozilla guy has expressed interest in this approach. Developers from
MSIE and Opera may prefer (I suspect) “another couple of CSS rules rather
than begin from zero with a unfriendly spec (MathML)”.
>> specially in next Tim Bray semantic web,
>
> I think you confuse Tim Bray and Tim B-L.
Yes I did, even if Tim Bray is also evagelizing about RDF and all that stuff.
P.S: XSL-FO ;-)
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
More information about the whatwg
mailing list