Subject: Re: XS: Ports --> math From: Sebastian Rahtz <s.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 18:01:54 +0100 (BST) |
> I'm not going to say that I am against generic math or generic > tables, but merely point out that the two arguments: "It's hard" > and "It's not needed by 90% of the population" are both valid ones > that have been used many times in the XML discussion. The > counter argument is typically "But it is still important because math has always been _presented_ as hard, but is it? it seems to me that there are four issues: a) intra-math spacing b) fonts c) construction of extended characters (like fences) d) equation breaking the claim of what I call generically `The Pikes' is that semantic math reduces a) and d) to `easy' rules - in any case thats a matter of establishing rules, nothing hard for the browser. c) is potentially rather tricky - i am not sure if anyone reading can comment. b) is a killer, of course, but thats not *hard*. The STIX project aims to tackle that. As for the 90%/10%, yes, its a good rule. But since math underlies practically all of our science, i kind of feel it should be treated specially :-} but i think this thread has probably gone on long enough.... sebastian DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XS: Ports --> math, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: XS: Ports --> math, Paul Grosso |
Re: XS: needed features?, Sebastian Rahtz | Date | DSSSL Math Question, Paul Prescod |
Month |