2 comments of which 2 are resolved
The MathML for CSS Profile Last Call draft has received two comments. One is an endorsement, the other some initial suggestions that do not have an impact on the present document.
We itemize the comments received and the Math WG responses. The new Profile seems has received no objections and general support from the community. This may result from the fact that a profile and an associated CSS stylesheet are difficult to fault since they actually work.
| General |
|
| Summary: | Comments from CSS WG |
| Submitted: | Bert Bos,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/2009Nov/0041.html |
| Response: | None needed |
| Discussion: | Just to close the loop: The CSS WG has no comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-mathml-for-css-20091006/ |
| Resolution: | An endorsement from the CSS WG.
|
| Summary: | Initial thoughts re. XSL-FO |
| Submitted: | Liam Quin,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/2009Nov/0000.html |
| Response: | None needed |
| Discussion: |
[These comments have not yet been discussed with the
XSL-FO Task Force of the XSL Working Group, and
should be taken as a personal heads-up and not a
formal comment requiring a Working Group response]
Lots of good stuff in the MathML draft. And some very
clear and honest writing.
For XSL-FO 2.0, people have requested
(1) include MathML directly, e.g. having
math:math markup directly inside an fo:inline element
I don't think any work is needed from MathML for this.
(2) Allow such embedded mathematics to inherit CSS properties
such as width, font, text size etc from the surrounding
XSL-FO document. The MathML 3 draft does move in this
direction, but the XSL-FO WG may request more.
It might be that, e.g. a joint WG Note could satisfy
this, without normative changes to the MathML spec itself.
(3) I think that putting fragments of XSL-FO markup inside
equations, where mathtext is allowed now, is also
desired -- I'm sure that we could live with a lot of
restrictions on this, and until we hear from XSL-FO
implementors it's premature of us to ask for it, but
since you're at Last Call I wanted to give you the
idea that we might ask for it. An example is a list
of expressions rather like "case" notation for
mathematics, with large curly braces or other fences,
and perhaps a bulleted list or sequence of paragraphs
inside.
These are exactly the things we discussed informally in a joint
meeting a year ago, so it doesn't look like we're going to be
gaining requirements. We are working on non-rectangular
paragrahs/regions/blocks, but my personal opinion (since
we have not discussed it) is that a restriction that embedded
content must always be rectangular would be just fine in
practice.
Liam
--
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
|
| Resolution: | Self-closing: some helpful suggestions
for later action as the XSL-FO work proceeds.
|