> 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
which is advertised as a client-side solution for rendering but can
equally be done as a batch process. It takes xhtml+mathml document and
(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.
On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 17:42 +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> 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.xsl >
> which is advertised as a client-side solution for rendering but can
> equally be done as a batch process.
Yes, I guess that's what I was looking for... I had seen it in other
contexts; I'm not sure why I didn't see it as a solution in this
context. I'll have to take a closer look. Thanks.