3 ms·

Before all the chrome and Google bashing starts... The point is why do we need something specific for math. Would people be OK with a musicml? Or say chemicalm

Before all the chrome and Google bashing starts... The point is why do we need something specific for math. Would people be OK with a musicml? Or say chemicalml? And that's a good question. Why is math so special? Let's try to solve the problem more generically instead of adding specialized domains in the browser.

bayesianhorse 13y ago
Why is math so special? Asked at Hackernews? Really?
- codezero 13y ago
  Is asking that off limits? If it's so obvious and easy to understand, explain it. Also, Chrome caters to a very wide audience so dev time has to consider a much broader audience than hackers.
  - ovangle 13y ago
    The problem is that the Chrome team shouldn't be selectively implementing parts of the html5 standard [1]. It shouldn't matter how many users desire the functionality after it's accepted by the w3c. Of course, Chrome could implement whatever it likes if it drops any claim to be standards compliant, but until that happens... [1] http://www.w3.org/Math/draft-spec/mathml.html http://www.w3.org/Math/draft-spec/mathml.html
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - ovangle 13y ago
        Ummm, no. It is part of the html5 spec, under embedded content. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content-0.html#mathml http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-conten...
      - anon1385 13y ago
        Is that a meaningful distinction? <img>, <video>, <audio> and <math> are all on this page: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/CR/embedded-content-0.html#mathml http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/CR/embedded-content-0....
    - mddw 13y ago
      What ? Of course they should. It's all about choice. There are a shitload of standards and a limited amount of man-hour.
  - threeseed 13y ago
    So why not just say we would like to do this but don't have time ? The impression I got was that they would never implement it.
  - bayesianhorse 13y ago
    Just to explain the joke: Math is special to us nerds.
    - codezero 13y ago
      So the Chrome team should implement this because...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deSouza 13y ago
"Why is math so special?". Try counting up the fields that use mathematical notation versus musical and chemical notation.
- farnsworth 13y ago
  Is "counting the fields" how we should consider all Chrome feature requests? A browser's user is not a field.
  - deSouza 13y ago
    I love the semantics heroes here on HN.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dak1 13y ago
There's a long thread on mozilla.dev.platform[1] that lays out the arguments for MathML quite well. I'd also add that there is a W3C Math WG, and has been for over a decade. I would have thought the question of whether or not MathML is desirable would have been answered at some point in that time frame before it became a W3C Recommendation. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.platform/96dZw1jXTvM/hkNn65-Spf4J https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.platform/9...
- zurn 13y ago
  That thread starts with a pretty well reasoned argument for dropping MathML ("Summary: MathML is a vestigial remnant of the XML-everything era, and we should drop it."), and a later message provides more background for WebKit/Blink MathML problems: "The Blink implementation was never good enough to render MathML pages well in the real world, whether there were any or not. It also had some pretty major brokenness in the way it was integrated into Blink, which made it difficult to enable safely. "
  - ibotty 13y ago
    and there are very many arguments pro MathML in it as well, which makes the reasoning seem not so well founded. to quote one rebuttal of every point the thread op made: 1.1. you make a point against adding unnecessary typography. Mathematics is text, but adding new requirements. It's comparable to the introduction of RTL or tables much more than musical notation. It's also something that all school children will encounter for 9-12 years. IMHO, this makes it necessary to implement mathematical typesetting functionality. 1.2 you claimed MathML is inferior to TeX. I've tried to point out that that's not the case as most scientific and educational publishers use it extensively. 1.2.1 you claimed TeX is the universal standard. I've tried to point out only research mathematicians use it as a standard. Almost most mathematics happens outside that group. 1.2.2 You pointed out that MathML isn't friendly to manual input. That's true but HTML isn't very friendly either, nor is SVG. 1.2.3 You argued TeX is superior for accessibility. I've pointed out that that's not the case given the current technology landscape. 2 You wrote now is the time to drop MathML. I've tried to point out that now -- as web and ebook standard -- is the time to support it, especially when your implementation is almost complete and you're looking to carve a niche out of the mobile and mobile OS market, ebooks etc. 2.1 you claim MathML never saw traction outside of Firefox. I tried to point out that MathML has huge traction in publishing and the educational sector, even if it wasn't visible on the web until MathJax came along. Google wants MathML support (they just don't trust the current code) while Apple has happily advertised with the MathML they got for free. Microsoft indeed remains a mystery. 2.2 you claim MathJax does a great job -- ok, I'm not going to argue ;) -- while browsers don't. But we've used native output on Firefox before MathJax 2.0 and plan to do it again soon -- it is well implemented and can provide the same quality of typesetting. 3. Well, I'm not sure what to say to those. If math is a basic typographical need, then the syntax doesn't matter -- we need to see it implemented and its bottom up layout process clashes with CSS's top down process. No change in syntax will resolve that.
eof 13y ago
That would be a pretty good argument if MathML weren't in the HTML5 spec
saraid216 13y ago
Do MusicML or ChemicalML exist yet? I'd be interested even in the specifications if you've got some links. A quick Google didn't net much.
- haberman 13y ago
  MusicXML does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicXML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicXML
  - btown 13y ago
    The closest thing to an open-source in-browser JS renderer would be something based on https://github.com/0xfe/vexflow https://github.com/0xfe/vexflow, but a reliable converter for MusicXML hasn't been written yet.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Yes to ChemicalML: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Markup_Language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Markup_Language
weland 13y ago
> The point is why do we need something specific for math. You seem not to have been around when we had to do it over plain text. It sucked. MathML is a huge gain for sharing thoughts over scientific matters. Of course, they aren't as important to today's "open web" compared to, say, ads and making text rumble with JS, but they shouldn't be relegated to an entirely unimportant position, especially considered they're part of the famous HTML5 standard that should supposedly deliver us from the dreaded fractures between platforms.
mindcrime 13y ago
The point is why do we need something specific for math. Considering that the roots of the WWW are in a scientific research organization (CERN)[1], and considering how much scientific users use maths, then yeah, I'd say it makes sense that maths should be a native part of the WWW platform. [1]: http://www.w3.org/History.html http://www.w3.org/History.html

bayesianhorse 13y ago

Why is math so special? Asked at Hackernews? Really?

codezero 13y ago
Is asking that off limits? If it's so obvious and easy to understand, explain it. Also, Chrome caters to a very wide audience so dev time has to consider a much broader audience than hackers.
- ovangle 13y ago
  The problem is that the Chrome team shouldn't be selectively implementing parts of the html5 standard [1]. It shouldn't matter how many users desire the functionality after it's accepted by the w3c. Of course, Chrome could implement whatever it likes if it drops any claim to be standards compliant, but until that happens... [1] http://www.w3.org/Math/draft-spec/mathml.html http://www.w3.org/Math/draft-spec/mathml.html
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - ovangle 13y ago
      Ummm, no. It is part of the html5 spec, under embedded content. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content-0.html#mathml http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-conten...
    - anon1385 13y ago
      Is that a meaningful distinction? <img>, <video>, <audio> and <math> are all on this page: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/CR/embedded-content-0.html#mathml http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/CR/embedded-content-0....
  - mddw 13y ago
    What ? Of course they should. It's all about choice. There are a shitload of standards and a limited amount of man-hour.
- threeseed 13y ago
  So why not just say we would like to do this but don't have time ? The impression I got was that they would never implement it.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  Just to explain the joke: Math is special to us nerds.
  - codezero 13y ago
    So the Chrome team should implement this because...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deSouza 13y ago

"Why is math so special?". Try counting up the fields that use mathematical notation versus musical and chemical notation.

farnsworth 13y ago
Is "counting the fields" how we should consider all Chrome feature requests? A browser's user is not a field.
- deSouza 13y ago
  I love the semantics heroes here on HN.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dak1 13y ago

There's a long thread on mozilla.dev.platform[1] that lays out the arguments for MathML quite well. I'd also add that there is a W3C Math WG, and has been for over a decade. I would have thought the question of whether or not MathML is desirable would have been answered at some point in that time frame before it became a W3C Recommendation. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.platform/96dZw1jXTvM/hkNn65-Spf4J https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.platform/9...

zurn 13y ago
That thread starts with a pretty well reasoned argument for dropping MathML ("Summary: MathML is a vestigial remnant of the XML-everything era, and we should drop it."), and a later message provides more background for WebKit/Blink MathML problems: "The Blink implementation was never good enough to render MathML pages well in the real world, whether there were any or not. It also had some pretty major brokenness in the way it was integrated into Blink, which made it difficult to enable safely. "
- ibotty 13y ago
  and there are very many arguments pro MathML in it as well, which makes the reasoning seem not so well founded. to quote one rebuttal of every point the thread op made: 1.1. you make a point against adding unnecessary typography. Mathematics is text, but adding new requirements. It's comparable to the introduction of RTL or tables much more than musical notation. It's also something that all school children will encounter for 9-12 years. IMHO, this makes it necessary to implement mathematical typesetting functionality. 1.2 you claimed MathML is inferior to TeX. I've tried to point out that that's not the case as most scientific and educational publishers use it extensively. 1.2.1 you claimed TeX is the universal standard. I've tried to point out only research mathematicians use it as a standard. Almost most mathematics happens outside that group. 1.2.2 You pointed out that MathML isn't friendly to manual input. That's true but HTML isn't very friendly either, nor is SVG. 1.2.3 You argued TeX is superior for accessibility. I've pointed out that that's not the case given the current technology landscape. 2 You wrote now is the time to drop MathML. I've tried to point out that now -- as web and ebook standard -- is the time to support it, especially when your implementation is almost complete and you're looking to carve a niche out of the mobile and mobile OS market, ebooks etc. 2.1 you claim MathML never saw traction outside of Firefox. I tried to point out that MathML has huge traction in publishing and the educational sector, even if it wasn't visible on the web until MathJax came along. Google wants MathML support (they just don't trust the current code) while Apple has happily advertised with the MathML they got for free. Microsoft indeed remains a mystery. 2.2 you claim MathJax does a great job -- ok, I'm not going to argue ;) -- while browsers don't. But we've used native output on Firefox before MathJax 2.0 and plan to do it again soon -- it is well implemented and can provide the same quality of typesetting. 3. Well, I'm not sure what to say to those. If math is a basic typographical need, then the syntax doesn't matter -- we need to see it implemented and its bottom up layout process clashes with CSS's top down process. No change in syntax will resolve that.

eof 13y ago

That would be a pretty good argument if MathML weren't in the HTML5 spec

saraid216 13y ago

Do MusicML or ChemicalML exist yet? I'd be interested even in the specifications if you've got some links. A quick Google didn't net much.

haberman 13y ago
MusicXML does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicXML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicXML
- btown 13y ago
  The closest thing to an open-source in-browser JS renderer would be something based on https://github.com/0xfe/vexflow https://github.com/0xfe/vexflow, but a reliable converter for MusicXML hasn't been written yet.
mindcrime 13y ago
Yes to ChemicalML: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Markup_Language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Markup_Language

weland 13y ago

> The point is why do we need something specific for math. You seem not to have been around when we had to do it over plain text. It sucked. MathML is a huge gain for sharing thoughts over scientific matters. Of course, they aren't as important to today's "open web" compared to, say, ads and making text rumble with JS, but they shouldn't be relegated to an entirely unimportant position, especially considered they're part of the famous HTML5 standard that should supposedly deliver us from the dreaded fractures between platforms.

mindcrime 13y ago

The point is why do we need something specific for math. Considering that the roots of the WWW are in a scientific research organization (CERN)[1], and considering how much scientific users use maths, then yeah, I'd say it makes sense that maths should be a native part of the WWW platform. [1]: http://www.w3.org/History.html http://www.w3.org/History.html