> It doesn’t matter whether or not MathML is a good XML language. Personally, I
> think it’s quite alright. It’s also clearly a success in the XML publishing
> world, serving an important role in standards such as JATS and BITS.
> The problem is: MathML has failed on the web.
> Not a single browser vendor has stated an intent to work on the code, not a
> single browser developer has been seen on the MathWG. After 18 years, not a
> single browser vendor is willing to dedicate even a small percentage of a
> developer to MathML.
> Math layout can and should be done in CSS and SVG. Let’s improve them
> incrementally to make it simpler.
> It’s possible to generate HTML+CSS or SVG that renders any MathML content –
> on the server, mind you, no client-side JS required (but of course possible).
> Since layout is practically solved (or at least achievable), we really need
> to solve the semantics. Presentation MathML is not sufficient, Content MathML
> is just not relevant.
> We need to look where the web handles semantics today – that’s ARIA and HTML
> but also microdata, rdfa etc.
I think both, the rendering as well as the semantics, are well worth thinking
about. Perhaps Wikimedia should reach out to Peter Krautzberger, and discuss
some ideas of how math (and physics, and chemistry) content should be handled by
Wikipedia, Wikidata, and friends. This seems like a cross roads, and we should
have a hand in where things are going from here.
Am 07.04.2016 um 20:00 schrieb Moritz Schubotz:
> Hi Daniel,
> Ok. Let's discuss!
Great! But let's keep the discussion in one place. I made a mess by
cross-posting this to two lists, now it's three, it seems. Can we agree on
<[hidden email]> as the venue of discussion? At least for the
discussion of MathML in the context of Wikimedia, that would be the best place,
Am 07.04.2016 um 23:01 schrieb Paul Topping:
> I have no problem with that but are some of these lists members-only? I was
> told when I replied that my message would be reviewed by the moderator as I
> wasn't a member. Perhaps that was the W3C list.
Oh... both the Wikimedia lists are members only, I'm afraid. The W3C list
requires a 1-click agreement to their terms. That's easier, but less likely to
involve Wikimedia people.