I'm wondering if the lack of reactions so far is positive or negative. So let me try to elicit more responses.
Here are three problems I see down the road.
1) A switch to MathML output will come with a performance loss.
Without a polyfill, rendering quality will be lost. With a polyfill, rendering speed will be lost. MathML polyfills are especially difficult because they have to replace browser rendering (e.g. they force lots of layout activity).
2) TeX/LaTeX compatibility might be lost.
"Native" content (e.g. <maction> or even subexpression links) has no counterpart in TeX. Conservative extensions of TeX can easily enable this kind of content but backward compatibility will be lost.
3) Supporting MathML might seem risky.
It's easy to only see the current limitations of MathML -- poor browser experience, poor rendering quality, and browser vendors have shown little to no interest. While the better comparison might be early HTML with its limitations, a similar success story is not automatic.
While I do not think any of these are critical problems, I'd be interested to hear from people who think otherwise. Peter.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 07/18/2013 12:52 PM, Peter Krautzberger wrote:
I'd be happy to write an RFC.
That's an option, but it's perfectly reasonable if you want to talk it out more and let it crystallize some.
Matt Flaschen
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l