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(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l