> It's not clear that W3C process allows this; I see...

for the mathml spec itself we use html+images for the normative version,

and link to a separate xhtml+mathml version.

I think that's reasonable for mathml itself, you shouldn't need a

working mathml setup to read the mathml spec, but it would be nice if

8 years after the initial mathml spec, the w3c allowed other specs to

use normative xhtml+mathml.

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to supply a html-only

version, especially if the mathematical layout requirements are not to

great.

You can generate images, but an alterntive is to use to use something

like the pmathmlcss stylesheet available from

http://www.w3.org/math/xsl/pmathmlcss.xslwhich is advertised as a client-side solution for rendering but can

equally be done as a batch process. It takes xhtml+mathml document and

downgrades all the mathml to xhtml+css+javascript for the stretchy

brackets.

the javascript part is a bit suspect really but works on older browsers

(ie browsers current at the time I wrote the thing) There are some newer

attempts to do mathml via css but they require good support for css2 and

3 features such as generated content and seleting on attribute values,

so it's not sure they are really usable as a general fallback for

browsers without mathml support.

David